Category: Let's talk
This is another two-parter. I will save my thoughts on religion in Greece for last, and will discuss this topic from a more general viewpoint in the rest of my essay, using America as a base, since I'm familiar with their way of life.
Many Americans have a habbit of discussing their constitution and whether or not there's an official separation of church and state, whether their founding fathers were religious or wanted the nation to be etc. I'll leave you to discuss that in comments if you'd like, as I don't know. But I do know that if a society claims that the freedom to express onesself is one of it's most important attributes, the act of promoting a specific religion over all others does not coincide with those views. I myself am a Hellenic Polytheist. I have no problems with those of other faiths, including Christians. I even enjoy discussing their religions with them. But I do have a serious problem with those who force their religious beliefs on others. Mostly, in america, this is done by Christians. So I must focus on them, but this is true for everyone.
Many Christians have a desire to bring prayer into public schools. In a fairly homogenius society, like Japan, for example, this might work. But in one with such diverse religions, it's simply not practical, unless, perhaps, it could be done as a moment of silent prayer and/or contemplation. The problem is that most people don't mean this, particularly those who believe that prayer from their religion is necessary to bring morality back to the nation. Since not everyone is Christian, this causes a conflict of interest, as those who don't believe in Jesus, the monotheistic god, or even any deities at all, would then be left out and/or made to feel uncomfortable. Faith is something that must be felt with the heart and mind. It cannot be forced out of someone. I could learn and recite a prayer just as well as anyone else. But that doesn't mean I would then believe in it. Is it not far better to let children learn and explore on their own, or at least to teach them at home, where they won't be persecuted etc? This is not to say that I think the teaching of religion should be banned. In fact, I highly recommend it! But it should be done in a scholarly manner and not taught as a class of facts like science or history, and various religions should be discussed. This helps students develop a sense of understanding about their peers and also promotes curiosity about the world around them and their own faith. If, in contrast, a parent feels that it's essential for his child to learn about the family's faith in school, then he should send the child to a parochial school. In those cases, I have no issue with religion being taught or even made mandatory. So if, for example, an atheist or pagan goes to a Christian or Jewish school, he should not complain when told to read The Bible or the Jewish texts.
Another form of religious expression, often seen in America, is prayers given by organisations during meetings or other gatherings. Unless the organisation clearly belongs to a religious group, I strongly feel that this should not be done. An example of this is the National Federation of the Blind. This organisation does not state explicitly that they're Christian, and yet, they pray to The Lord before meetings. At least they did the three or so times I went to a meeting held by them. The same holds true for public schools saying prayers before a sports match, and especially for professional teams! If you're not a parochial school or a local religious team, you have no business doing it. If the players wish to pray, that's their choice. But don't make it a public spectical. I extend this to public expressions of religion made by politicians as well. There's nothing wrong with one wearing a religious symbol, going to a place of worship or even being shown celebrating a sacred holiday with his family. But religion has no place in politics itself. There should be no nativity scene at the capitol, no saying of prayers by The President, or indeed, of any politician, except in the cases of funerals for veterans, important leaders and so forth. While such things may be public, they're really about the person who died, so it's only natural for his faith to be honoured. Other than that, when you serve the state, your rules of conduct are somewhat different from those of civilians. If I was a celebrity and was receiving an award and said "I thank The Gods for assisting me in this." That's fine. Perhaps, that may even be fine for a politician, if he limits himself to that comment. But where I, as the celebrity, could make a website and proclaim my views, wear religious clothing and even sing/write about The Gods, this is not appropriate for someone who is supposed to be representing the people. If such a person wishes to do this either before or after his political career, that's fine. But once he takes office, the people and the area served, be it town, city, state or nation, must come first in public matters.
In general, I see myself as being open-minded as far as what I'll discuss. So I have no problem, for example, talking about religion or politics at the dinner table. But at work is a different matter. Just as there are certain behaviours expected of students, be they children in Kindergarden or adults in graduate school, there are also certain expectations of those in the workplace. Of course, they vary depending on the job in question, but most jobs have a dress code. If you're a construction worker, the odds are that you won't arrive at work wearing a suit and tie. If you're an executive, you usually wouldn't be seen wearing work boots and a hard hat. Likewise, if you're a minister or religious person of some kind, discussing religion would naturally be part of your job. But most secular workplaces frown on discussing religion while on the job. At first, this seems to make no sense. Certainly, when I talk of my faith, I only wish to share experiences, to answer questions and to tell my story in a tolerant and conversational manner. Unfortunately, there are also those who, upon hearing that I believe in The Gods of what they consider to be pure fantasy, feel it necessary to mock both Them and me. Some not only ask questions, like "how could you believe in such things", but get agressive, saying that I'll go to Hell, that I'm the spawn of Satan, that God hates me or that I can be saved if I turn to Christ. Personally, I've only met maybe two of these types, as my friends are all at least tolerant and I don't live in an area where religion is pushed. But I know this happens to many others, and I could only imagine that it would cause heartache at work. You can't simply walk away from your coworkers if you're expected to work with them. Then, there are those who are not cruel, exactly, but who believe that it's necessary to spread their faith. These aren't content with merely discussing it or sharing their stories, but believe that God put them in your life to convert you and make you "see the light". While some may not be confrontational, their constant proselytising could be annoying at best and downright destracting at worst. To be fair, I've also met some atheists who are just as strong in their hatred of religion and of trying to force everyone to follow science or renounce their faith as some evangelicals. At any rate, these problems don't stop with employees. If a customer overhears such a heated discussion going on, he may not wish to buy the products from or take the services of the company or may engage in the debate and hold up the line, for instance, at a cash register. My advice to coworkers who truly want to discuss religion is to go out for lunch or coffee, and if they're still not satisfied after that, they could exchange phone numbers, e-mails and/or Facebook account information.
Most religions have their own holidays, traditions and celebrations. Some, like Hellenic Polytheism, have many of them throughout the year. Others have only a few. But when most people think of "the holidays", particularly in winter, they think of Christmas, Newyear's, and Easter. To many, it's natural to greet someone during this time with "merry/happy Christmas. But many who are not Christian get offended at this. In contrast, many Christians feel that their day has been commercialised and that people no longer appreciate it's meaning, to celebrate the birth of Christ. I can understand both sides of the issue. Certainly, there's something to be said for too much commercialism. In fact, this is why the founder of Mother's Day wanted to have the day abolished after awhile. The true message of love and family simply wasn't reaching the people, as they battled one another over gifts for Mom. The same holds true for Christmas. All one need do to see it is go to a store on Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving), or shortly before Christmas, to see the insanity of modernday shoppers. So I can definitely understand how followers of Christ feel that their day has been stolen from them for companies to make money. But on the other hand, Christmas itself is a stolen day! While it's true that most modern Christians don't know this and none participated in it, the day was chosen not because Christ was born then. In fact, if you go by the biblical account, he was born in the spring. The Church chose the 25th of December to win over the pagans and to get them to stop celebrating their holidays. So if anything, the pagans are the ones who have a historical case. That said, it is just that, historical. Most people who say "merry Christmas" don't have any ill will in their hearts, nor are they trying to convert people. They merely mean to give well wishes. Personally, I always say "happy holidays", unless I know what the person celebrates. This, I believe, is the best way to do it, since it's generic and no one is excluded, except, perhaps, those who don't celebrate anything. But I'm sure they can grin and bare it and be happy about something. The best thing to do is to say "thank you" and move on, unless the person is deliberately trying to proselytise. The same sort of ridiculousness can be seen regarding store Santas saying "ho ho ho". Some stores actually made them say "ha ha ha" due to politically correct nonsense.
Now we turn to Greece. As I stated at the beginning of the essay, things are a bit different from America. Religion is not only a part of daily life, it's even in The Constitution, beginning with the first sentence.
Taken from the English translation here.
http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/
"In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity
THE FIFTH REVISIONARY PARLIAMENT OF THE HELLENES RESOLVES". Part I, Section II is entitled RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE and Article 3 states That Eastern Orthodoxy is the official religion of the nation. In that same article is a law stating that any official translation of The Bible into another language, not sanctioned by The Church, is prohibited. Given my views in previous paragraphs, one might expect me to rant about there being an official religion of any kind and to proclaim that separation of church and state should be mandatory. Yet it's important to take the history of the modern state of Greece into account. Christians have played a very important role in modern Greek society. In fact, if it wasn't for the help of the priests, we might not have achieved independence from the Ottomans. And let's remember that all four of our national saviours (General Metaxas, colonels Papadopoulos and Makarezos and Brigadier general Pattakos) were all Christians. Even though there are other religions in the country, including Hellenic Polytheism, which is the native religion and which is not even recognised, it can't be denied that most people in the country are Greek Orthodox. Due to this, those who are not often feel that they can't discuss their religion for various reasons. While appealing to authority is a logical fallacy, I'll still say that I've met enough people with this view that I consider it to be true. Even if you were to go by facts alone, it's easy to see the prevalence of the faith in everything, from general culture to laws. Until fairly recently, it was common for those processing passports and other forms of identification to ask your religion along with the usual information and to then write it on the document. Children were required, by law, to attend religious classes in schools until about three years ago. To this day, in order to be exempt from attending said classes, a child must have written concent from both parents. While I'm not ordinarily a fan of the EU, they did help to promote certain good changes with regards to religion. But changing attitudes and laws takes time, even under the best of circumstances. So to expect a culture in which religion is such an important part of life to suddenly adopt a more open and secular approach is laughable. But I do believe that it's still possible. If, however, there should be another revolution, then I have no doubt that the gains made will be lost. But that's a risk that must be taken and lived with in order to deal with the much more serious issues which are currently plaguing the nation.
To conclude, while religion is a wonderful thing in general, I believe that, in a country such as America, which claims to have such freedom and diversity, there really should be a separation of church and state and this should be reflected in public life as well. Even if documents say differently, the people are now so diversified that doing otherwise would only be an injustice to them.
This actually came up in various forms, in several other threads, so I figured it was time that I posted my essay about it. Now the atheists and the religious can go to town with themselves! *smile* Seriously, though, I am curious as to where people will draw the lines of acceptable and unacceptable expression of religion in public. I personally feel there needs to be a balance between the theocratic and the purely secular.
I agree with you as per publick religious force to be abolished.
Here, even in my work place, they always start with a prayer song. each and everyone will stand up and give respect to that song. but those people won't stand up if a knowledged person or an higher officials or coming across them.
What I'm trying to say is, try respecting your seniors/intelligents/higher officials first. rather than respecting a song which is being played somewhere from a recorder
I'm not following any religion. I worship nature. As per me, which is the base for each and everything.
Raaj.
I agree, for the most part. Respect for superiors is important. But if the Hellenic national anthem is played, I'll stand up, even when alone! I respect the nation far more than any people, above or below me.
While I strongly feel that religion is the biggist problem with society, I say live and let live. I am nobody's boss.
Personally, I really don't care whether or not you say "Merry Christmas", "happy Holidays", "Happy Christmas", or whatever you want. I'm an atheist, and therefore you are not going directly against my beliefs by saying any of these things, so why should I care? I am dead set against any religious practices being forced onto any member of the general public, including laws being passed for religious reasons. otherwise, I really don't care. will I point out any flaws I see in your arguments? Absolutely. Do I expect valid, well thought out and researched points in return? You bet. But only because you are putting your opinion out there for people to discuss as they see fit. some people seem to think that falls into the forcing/preaching category, to which I say: is someone forcing you to keep your hands on the keyboard, and your eyes glued to your computer screen? does someone have your hands tied behind your back while forcefully reading all these forem posts to you? if not, then please do explain how else debating with you on a forem could be considered getting preachy or forceful.
All of the above are extremely valid points. I don't see debates as being forceful at all. If, on the other hand, I went up to you and started prosyletising, and wouldn't stop when asked to do so, that's different. But as you said, no one forces people to read these posts or to respond to them. When stating facts, I also agree with you that they should be backed up. This is why I often say things like "I believe", "I think", and "in my opinion" to distinguish between facts and beliefs.
You do realize that beliefs should be backed up with facts, and if they can't should be abandoned; right? You shouldn't just have a belief because you want to, you should have a belief based on the best available evidence. At least in the case of opinions, rather thhan tastes. Tastes you can have for whatever reason you feel like having them for.
But even phrases like "I believe" don't hold much weight if you have nothing else to say. for example, let's say I said" "I believe religion is a crock of shit". though that's quite a strong statement, it's not going to hold much weight with even atheists/agnostics, much less religious people. Now, if I added to that: "because many people use their religion as an excuse to kill people, deny them basic rights like right of choice, and to scare innocent children into doing what they see fit by threatening them with infinite suffering and shame in a place called hell", ...that would hold quite a bit more weight. I'm not saying noone will have a response for that, nor am I saying those statements apply to every religious person, but it sure gives my opinion that religion is a crock of shit a lot more credibility.
Sorry Cody. I didn't see your post before posting myself. I definitely agree with you.
Who made that rule/law? Can someone not believe in something based on personal experience or on his own morals? True, some beliefs should be examined, and there are some which should be based in fact, if only so that they make sense. I can't say "I believe that my table is square" when it's round and expect people to take me seriously. But when discussing things that are not so concrete, such as religion, the beliefs in question can either be backed up or can be a matter of opinion. If I said that hateful materials against certain religion should be banned, based on the fact that they could lead to violence, and then produce evidence supporting that fact, it makes my argument stronger. But if I believe that the best course of action when greeted with "merry Christmas" is just to say "thanks" and move on, why does that require support? It's an opinion.
OceanDream, that does put things into clearer perspective. I thought we were discussing scholarly support, like articles, quotes and the like. Certainly, your kind of explanations do make sense and should always be put into practice. What is the use in saying that you believe something is good or bad without backing it up with a supporting statement?
If you don't have a reason as to why you feel that way, then I am led to question how much you've honestly thought about it. I said, a few posts back, that the reason I just say thanks and move on is because I'm atheist, and that because nobody is doing anything that directly goes against my beliefs, I have no reason to be offended. now, if someone tells me Merry christmas, and then drags me away from my family and to their church in the hopes of saving me that day, I will not be content to just say thanks and move on, because in that instance, the person is violating my personal freedom to spend that day how i want.
I'm not saying it's exactly impossible to have an opinion without a reason, but I do consider it to be a very weak opinion: one that could easily be changed with future experience.
I agree. My reason for acting as I do in that situation is that most people don't mean it in a negative way. They just say it and go about their business. So I see no reason to start fights with them. I realise, whether I like it or not, that most people are Christian, and that even those who aren't are so accustomed to saying it that it's sort of programmed into them. So saying "thanks" just acknowledges that they wanted to wish me a good day and have the holiday spirit. That said, like you, if someone was to make a huge deal of it, I would have to speak up and request that they stop following me, trying to convert me, or whatever it is that they're doing to make me feel uncomfortable.
May the force be with you.
Believe it or not, there are actually some who follow Star Wars philosophy as a religion. I saw an article on this sometime back, but don't have it on hand. We were discussing it in one of the religious groups of which I'm a member, and whether it's right to consider it a religion or more of a cult and/or fan club.
Whoa. Far out.
The reason you can't have an opinion not based on fact is because it isn't an opinion. At that point its just a wacked out idea you came up with, and it is like dust in the wind, its pointless and easily changed. An opinion based on fact is the only kind of opinion that mmatters.
Good point, Cody. This was something I learned the hard way, unfortunately.
If you're stating an opinion without any backing, or if you're claiming something as fact, then I agreee with you. But as I've already said, provided that you explain yourself, there are certain opinions which do not have a factual or scientific basis. These are purely personal views. Some are tastes but some are philosophies.
Even philosophies have evidence. I can't just say, "the world is made of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream" without giving some evidence of it.
We have this notion in the world today that says everyone is entitled to there own opinion, but you're not. You have the right to argue, you do not have the rigt to be right. As lng as you are going to have an opinion, and put your opinion out to be viewed, you have a responsibility to make it as factually based as it is possible to be.
"We have this notion in the world today that says everyone is entitled to there own opinion, but you're not." Who is to say that I am not entitled to my own opinion? Your example is what I meant by stating things as if they were facts. It can clearly be proven that the world is not made of chocolate chip cookie dough iced cream. But it cannot be proven that this isn't the best flavour out there. That is an opinion and a taste. If you stated that you believe eating iced cream is a great way to relax after work, and that you've often done this, you've proven why you think this is so. Must you go and bring in case studies and scholarly texts on all the ways in which people relax? Granted, on more serious issues, if you're not just discussing personal experience, it is good to use facts to back up your ideas. When discussing military rule, for example, I often site links about The Revolution of 21 April and the 4th of August Regime, to back up my claim that such rule, when necessary, can be beneficial. But when writing an opinion piece, I usually speak from my mind. These were not written as scholarly studies.
Lest anyone should say that I'm hung up on this topic, let me point out that I've also used sites and facts when discussing the rights of tobacco smokers and raw milk drinkers. I just haven't had those debates here.
yes, and please don't thank you.
I can respect peoples right to have an opinion. though that is a completely different thing than letting it go unchallenged. Many people ignorantly assume for some ridiculous reason that you must not question an opinion, to respect the fact someone has one. I didn't mention respecting the opinion, and that's because not all opinions are truly worth respect. though I still support the right of people to hold them. take religious opinions for example. I respect the right of people to hold religious opinions, but it doesn't really mean I need to respect the opinion it self as factual, correct, worthy, accurate, provable, reasonable etc. most religions can't be proven with fact, reason, logic, or by any reasonable method of proof.
this being the case, I still seek not to flatly offend people. but when they ask for my opinions, I'll explain why I believe their opinion has no credible basses, as well as why I find it hard to take it seriously.
I also respect the persons right to not respect the values I put forth in my opinions or statements. Again, in the case of religion, how could I ignore logic by denying them the ability to see things differently? that would be a bit of a contradiction.
i will honor many of their customs that don't require me to pray/worship along side them, out of respect for them as people. note I didn't say all.
In my mind, the problem really starts when people try for some odd reason to associate their belief with logic/reason particularly in a scientific/academic setting. Partly because none of these arguments/proofs/theories provide sound enough proof to really lend much weight to the claims. Partly as well because of the fact many people use their semi logical/semi rational "proofs" to oppress others of other faiths. replacing illogic with illogic isn't very rational.
On the subject of allowing/not allowing worship in public. Why not? As long as worshipers are not negatively impacting the daily lives of others to an extreme, and as long as they do not forcibly seek to elicit participation from those around them?
I don't mind people worshiping at all, but I have no desire to be drawn in to it for several reasons. this being the case, I support peoples ability to worship as provided by the constitution.
I think religious institutions using their congregation of members to promote or support political causes should be frowned upon in the extreme. Again, I suppose its a freedom of expression issue, so it shouldn't be outlawed per say, but the practice is worrying/morally corrupt in my opinion.
I draw the line at groups of religious people attempting to pass laws that seek to govern or promote an ideal based on their specific religious values. As we're a mixed society, I don't believe any one religious group should have the ability to set laws based on their code that effect everyone else. this should also be applied to government as well. Keep things secular as all religions are represented in this country. Our country was not founded on christian ideals, and all this nonsense enacted during the time of the red scare should be eliminated. If for no other reasons than secularization and historical accuracy.
Lightning I agree with you about supporting oppinions with evidence. The problem is, what appears to be evidence to one person may appear speculative to another. Certainly there are some indisputable facts based on very distinguished evidence. But there are many oppinions that can be backed up by seemingly reliable sources. For example all the various raging medical debates going on in the world. New ideas give rise to new oppinions; new facts clarify those oppinions. But as nice as it would be if this were true, not everything is automatically as it seems. I have what I consider to be more than sufficient evidence that we humans are not in control of all things; that God and all that he is exists. As you have stated on numerous occasions you whole-heartedly disagree with what "evidence" I have put forth. And that's fine. You don't really have any way to varify the things which I myself have experienced. But I've also seen your "evidence" to the contrary of religion. And while I think I understandd most of it, and while a lot of it does seem very compelling, it is still just the truth according to you. So which one of us is right? Who knows? Who even cares? The important thing is to stand up whole-heartedly for our beliefs, and to do our best to clear up the misconceptions that arise about them. But it is just as important to not condemn one another for their beliefs, or to mock them just because we do not agree.
And that leads me back to the topic at hand. I think it's important to respect one another's beliefs in so far as they do not actively harm those around us. As frustrating as it is to see people standing on street corners preaching religion, there's little difference between that and anyone else declaring their beleifs. That said, when that religious person is actively condemning individuals who aren't harming anyone, that's where I think it's unacceptable. If there's one thing I can't stand it's Christians saying that someone who doesn't agree with them, or who is acting in a way they deem inappropriate is going to hell, or is an abomination. Every action has a consequence, whether you're religious or not. And Christians have no right to condemn others; in fact we're commanded to do the opposite. God knows the hearts and minds of those we judge, and they will be judged according to their understandings, experiences and motivations. We humans barely even know the reasons we ourselves are doing something half the time, so we definately don't know the inner reasoning behind someone else. Furthermore they live a different life than we who are Christians do. They don't believe the same way, so why should they act the same way? We all have the rite to worship who, what and how we like - or to ignore religion completely. Don't set out to draw unneeded attention; don't proclaim your beliefs just for the sake of being heard. But do speak of them to those who are interested. Do pray silently in public - to your god or gods, not to the world. And I definatley draw the line at anything that is actively dangerous to others.
Good post Stormwing. I agree with all of that. It's really difficult, especially with delicate issues like Gay Marriage for instance to not be seen as politically pushy. Personally in spite of my beliefs about that topic, I don't think it's really my rite to either judge, or impose my beliefs. Although one thing that severely bothers me is how a lot of Christians who are against the idea of homosexuality are considered homophobic. ... But that's a discussion for an entirely different topic.
I found what you said about science rather interesting. I myself firmly believe that there does not have to be a division between religion and science. Certainly science can't be used to prove that religion isn't a hoax, but nor, do I feel, does it disprove it either. Science is very important, and it is the way we're slowly starting to understand the universe and its workings. But I have no doubt at all that this universe and all it contains was created under firm laws - some of which we understand, some of which is still beyond us.
BG, contrary to popular belief, there is a definition and a standard of evidence. When newton theorized gravity, he didn't say, "Dude, there's this force, right. What it does, it pulls things toward the ground. Cuz you see man, I was sitting in my garden, and this fuckin' apple just cracked me right on the head. So, there's gotta be a force there". Stories are not evidence, as much as you'd like them to be.
No, you're right. Stories are not evidence. That's one reason it's not a good idea to rely on others' experiences as a bases for your own beliefs. But personal experience brings with it its own kind of evidence. Certainly I can't prove to you that there is anything beyond the known world. But as I've lived certain experiences in my own life, I believe whole-heartedly, even though I realize (and have thought of) other explanations. Is that evidence? not in a physical sense, no. That's why I am forever questioning, studying and trying to deepen my understanding of my beleifs.
Stormwing, I think you explained it quite well. I have no issue with being challenged. I post these things for that reason, so that I can see what others think, maybe add more to my current beliefs etc. But the fact that you can respect people's right to have an opinion also means that you understand common curtacy and the ways of debating. When asked, you give your opinion, as you said. But you aren't out to insult people, even if your views on an issue are strong. It's also very considerate of you to honour some customes alongside religious people, even though you don't follow any religion.
I agree about religion and science. To follow religion is one thing. To try and base said beliefs in logic and science is quite another. But I do make exception for Pascal's Wager, which basically states tht if there is a god, a Heaven and a Hell, and if believing in Him will send you to Heaven, while not doing so will send you to Hell, it's better to believe in Him. That, to me at least, does sound logical, though personally, I don't believe that lacking religion will send you to Hell, Tartaros, etc.
I see your points on worship as well. I, too, support the right to do so, as long as no one is forced into it. Unlike you, in America at least, I do think that mixing religion and politics should be outlawed. It only leads to confusion and problems, such as creating laws, which you've discussed.
The_Blind_Guardian, that was an excellent point about evidence! I could use an experience or an observation as evidence, and someone else might take it as valid, since it's not an indisputable fact. Say I believe in miracles, and then go on to describe how someone with a terminal illness was unexplainably and completely healed, after being told she only had a few months to live. That's not a scientific means of proving that miracles exist, but to me, it would be evidence enough to make that claim. Even a belief in the spiritual realm, which, to me, can be proven by the science of parapsychology, may not seem provable to others who dismiss it as pseudoscience. I adore this quote, which summarises what I've been trying to say here and elsewhere. "The important thing is to stand up whole-heartedly for our beliefs, and to do our best to clear up the misconceptions that arise about them. But it is just as important to not condemn one another for their beliefs, or to mock them just because we do not agree." Thank you! I also agree with you about people preaching on street corners. So long as they don't stop me, or as you said, condemn me for not following their religion or philosophy, I think it's fine. "Furthermore they live a different life than we who are Christians do. They don't believe the same way, so why should they act the same way? We all have the rite to worship who, what and how we like - or to ignore religion completely." I wish you could have been there for some of the debates/arguments that I've gotten into with sojme of my fellow Hellenic Polytheists, who constantly put down Christians! Not all do, of course, but I've tried to explain to them that there are some very tolerant, open-minded, and decent Christians out there and it went in one ear and out the other!
I have often heard that there is no real division between Hellenic Polytheism and science. But I cannot explain this without asking my co-religionists. It's not really something I've thought about much. I feel that if The Gods want to do something, They do it, and why can't They use science? Maybe, They've always done so and we just caught up to that fact. In either case, I agree that science is very important, whether I personally take an interest in it or not. It's provided us with a wealth of wisdom that we wouldn't have had any other way.
Cody and jess, why do you think people need to justify themselves to you? Can't people just believe what they want and leave other's out of it?
And Pascal's wager doesn't specify what god you should believe in, either.
Any thoughts on the ideas that some Muslim groups are trying to impose Sharia (sp?) Law in American courts?
They can go fuck themselves.
I'm not sure what you're speaking of Crazy, but I'll say this. Imposition of any kind is no way to convince others to be open to one's way of thinking.
And thank you for your words, Tiff.
Sure, they are allowed to have there opinions without question, its called shutting up and not putting them on a board to be questioned by all. You are more than welcome to do that and I will never even think of touching your opinions. In fact, I won't even know them.
But if you're going to put them out here, I'm going to judge them in whatever light I see fit. That is my right, just as posting them is your right. If you don't want to have them judged, don't post them. I take the same risk when I post things, or when I post replies. I don't whine about how I'm not being respected or any of that.
If you're going to debate something, you have to prove it. Otherwise, you're just wasting your breath, or typing skills in this case.
very well said, Cody.
Margorp, I figured that mind set would bother you, since we had a similar discussion on another topic. In that case, let me use this very discussion as an example. You asked why we should have to explain our opinions; why we can't just state our opinion and move on. what if my answer to that was: I don't know. You just do. Would that be a satisfactory answer to you? And if so, why is this? because I have not answered your question. Instead, I just wrote a sentence that ended with a period to make your question look answered. the only way I could see this as being a satisfactory answer is if you weren't whole heartedly getting into the debate. If that's the case, fair enough. Not everyone takes them seriously. But I do, and I expect that anyone else who does will debate my arguments with well thought out responses that I can then respond to in turn, and therefore continuing the conversation. to me, a conversation is over when we've presented all our points, and come to some sort of common conclusion, even if this conclusion is simply to agree to disagree. Otherwise, I consider the topic to be a bunch of posts rather than an actual conversation.
Tiff, no, I don't think you always need to site scholarly books or articles when stating an opinion, unless you're writing a formal essay that requires you to do so. I'm just saying your opinion doesn't hold much weight in a discussion or a debate setting unless you back it up with some sort of reasoning. The example of an ill person becoming healthy again with little to no medical intervention, and little hope of survival is fine. I don't agree that this can do anything to prove that miracles do exist, but it does more to keep this discussion moving than simply stating that you believe in miracles because that's what your religion says to do.
If you just responded to me that way, I would probably say something like, "fine, be that way, lol."
My point exactly.
But I wouldn't begrudge you for it.
I firmly believe Pascals wager is a vitriolic concept that exemplifies many of the worst problems found/associated with religion today. there is no excuse what so ever for using the fear of damnation to in most cases pull on emotional heartstrings enough to bypass logical argument.
In my mind its as bad as blackmail, or social/emotional programming.
Institute a serious fear in someone, be it social, spiritual, societal and weather or not they believe, they'll damn well conform because they're scared.
Ironically enough, that wager goes against most religious doctrines. So its baffling for me to attempt to understand why good law abiding religious people would contradict their views in such distorted exaggerated and vial ways, just to get a conversion?
Most christians I know are christian simply because of this false doctrine. they know next to nothing about the religion, but its this fear most of them wrestle with that keeps them locked in.
In my opinion, if your beliefs are founded on this concept, you're not a true believer of the faith at all, and thus, shouldn't be taken seriously in any religious context. Conforming out of comfort shouldn't be valued, respected or encouraged, because using this carrot and stick approach is emotional manipulation at its worst.
Assuming there is a god, and the christian/Judaic/islam point of view is correct, i'd firmly wish that all those believing/worshiping out of fear rather than understanding/exploration and conclusion roast in hell or what ever other place or state of consequence would inevitably await. Same goes for people who use this logic/reasoning to convert people.
Its bad enough cowards follow this logic with out it being spread, and used to violate the lives of more people.
That was a fair analysis But I, personally, don't advocate merely following a religion based strictly on this argument or on fear. I just find it to make sense. But if you neither know anything about your faith, nor truly believe in it, you should not practice it. As for conversions, I disagree with that as well. Faith must be felt or it is not real.
I agree with you completely Stormwing. I always found the wager a little difficult to stomach. Before I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that was one of the biggest issues I took with Christianity. This whole "believe or you're going to be eternally damned, no matter what kind of person you are." I've never been able to believe that. it doesn't make sense to me, because it would basically mean that anyone who had never heard of the Gospel would instantly be damned based on ignorance. What kind of loving God would do that? Conversion based on fear is not true conversion. It's true the Bible says to "fear God", but I think that is more a mistranslation than anything else. We are to revere him, love him, and yes, even realize that the things we do will have consequences. But This whole "be Christian or be damned for all eternity to a lake of fire and brimstone" stuff seems to contradict everything about being a Christian.
How can one love the inconceivable?
That's a good question, and it's one of the reasons why I believe The Gods appear to us in ways that we can understand. Not so that we can love Them, but so that we can understand Them on some level, enough that They can become conceivable to us.
I would agree with that. For me it's perfectly reasonable to feel love for such a being, given my understanding of all he and his son have done for us - for me in the past, and every day. I am extremely blessed to be where I am in life, and while certainly there is a lot that I can attribute to myself, I know I wouldn't be where I am today without a little celestial help. Scoff at that if you must; I don't blame you in the least. Unless you've experienced it first hand, it's hard to take it seriously.
And therein lies the problem. It is, "I feel it, so it must be real". Unfortunately, that doesn't work with things that actually exist. That's why, if something exists, you can prove it exists without having to experience it. I can show you pictures of a human heart, and I can let you feel it beating in your own chest, this is actual evidence that there is a heart in your chest. That's because there actuallly is one. However, you never actually saw or felt the heart.
This is why the people on the whywontgodhealamputees website devote so much time to this, and why they're proof will never occur. Because in order for religion to exist, it must be improvable. In order to believe in a ficticious being, one must never be able to prove that it does exist. Because, if you can prove that a god does exist, you can just as easily prove that it doesn't.
If God were to simply appear to everyone, or cure cancer forever instantaneously, or end world hunger, or heal every blind person on the face of the planet, or do any of the things he said he would do in the bible, then we'd all believe inn him. But he won't, because he can't, because he doesn't exist.
If you were to go to a time before the microscope was invented, and try to tell the people then about cells, bacteria, etc. they would tell you these things didn't exist, because they couldn't see them and their scientific instruments couldn't detect them either. Does that mean that these things only came into existence when the microscope was invented?
Its been proven by psychologists and sociologists that we have the mental flaws required to rationalize the irrational, believe the non believeble, and accept the acceptable. For many people, this is fear of the unknown that opens up the cracks in the wall of logic, that allow us to rationalize things that simply have no rational component. this is even truer of those of young age. the ability to reason doesn't clearly develop in all cases until around 6 or 7, so up until that point, children don't have the mental capacity to fight off the all but subliminal indoctrination they're harmfully exposed to. As a result, its very hard for many growing up in religious environments to shake the religion off completely. Even when they know its unsound, illogical and irrational.
So what if their god is a bigoted hateful jealous god? It doesn't matter when people need a defense or a rationalization, or a security blanket to act as a crutch for them to use to cope with.
there are many people who abandon their religion for years, only to run back to the security blanket when things get rough, because they were exposed before the age of reason, and they've been indoctrinated in to believing in their minds that is the only true way to feel safe.
Microscopes to see god are called entheogenic drugs. Har har.
No tif, that's not what I said. I said, though perhaps not clear enough I admit, that in order to prove something is real, one runs the risk of proving that it isn't.
For example, when pasteur set out to prove his theory, he was taking an equal risk of it being entirely wrong. Maybe his researchh would show that he was incorrect entirely. That is a risk that you take when you prove something.
Religions are unwilling to do this, because all the evidence points to their god being an imaginary figure.
unacceptable rather than acceptable in that first line. Sorry about the typo.
I feel that having faith in something that isn't there is a psychological disorder caused by those who lay guilt, shame, and fear on us as kids.
But what about those of us who never experienced those things as children or adults? Certainly, I wasn't brought up with any of that, nor do I feel it now.
society has it's way of squeezing it's way into our subconcious.
To Post 34: Which groups, which states, and which courts?
That is kind of a nebulous general statement usually associated with fear.
So what would have to happen to enact Muslim law in the courts? That depends on which courts in the land you're talking about. And, the courts merely interpret, they do not create, laws. Consequently this means a majority of the justices, or the judges, depending on the court we're talking about, would have to form judicial opinion on a case brought before them that would strictly comply with these laws.
We could go a lot further and longer into the topic of civics and governments, but suffice it to say, the U.S., Canada, the UK and other Western Nations are not Afghanistan, are not unstable governments where a mob coup can come in and "institute" their own version of law.
Most Americans are easily frightened about judicial opinion because first they don't understand it, and second, judges are most often appointed rather than elected. But, they are appointed by your elected officials, part of what makes a republic a republic.
For the stalwart so-called constitutionalists, there is one problem. The poster who brought up Shariah Law to begin with would not have ever had the right to vote in the U.S. as a woman had there not been an ammendment to the Constitution allowing this. Who makes Constitutional Ammendments? If you said judges, those terrible anti-constitutional people who give women the right to vote or emancipate slaves, or do any number of other attrocities in modern society, you would be wrong: again the Judicial branch merely interprets existing law in light ofcurrent circumstance and precedent. Study your Roman history to understand how modern courts work.
The real answer is in the legislators that you elect.
Now we still have not arrived at what is meant by Instituting Shariah Law in the U.S.
Deerbourne, Michigan has a large Muslim population and had one long before the anti-Muslim talk was en vogue, fashionable or otherwise espoused by the cool kids. Some of these citizens also had Muslim relatives and friends who died in the World Trade Center, and service personnel from that very district fight in our nation's Armed Services. One of the more obvious preposterous problems fundamentalists of any sort cannot truly sort out: so-called Muslim brothers blew up buildings who contained Muslims and nonmuslims, just as they do in the Middle East. Kind of like Christians killing Christians in the not-too-distant past: Irish Republican Army, anyone? I realize most Americans have a historical memory that approximates the average chicken, and like the average chicken, nearly anything will set them to squawking and flapping about in terror, but a little perspective is often all it takes to sort things out. A bit like a six-year-old running into the house crying they saw a monster, only to have the "monster" to be found to be the shadow thrown from a nearby object on a dark night.
If we ever got Shariah Law in a Western Nation, it would be because a majority of the voters elected people not only of that persuasion, but people who were absolutely dedicated to instituting Shariah Law as Law. This would be a gargantuan effort in a civilized society: think of all the laws that would have to be repealed first, and ratified by the courts by the way. What we're talking about is a sudden infusion into government at such a catastrophic and sudden level it would make the Mongols proud. In other words, especially for those who get their history from TV programs, it would mean somebody needs to come over here and kill a lot of people, destabilize the nation and its economy to such an extent so they could forcibly take over the government. Such Mongolian tactics would not result in a government that even approximated the courts and systems we have now.
So the better question is: Is it likely that we are to be invaded, destabilized like Afghanistan of the 1980s, and then have a new government of Islamic extremists? Never say never, but, safe to say Doubtful.government
As an aside, I thought it was interesting, the comment about not being able to really rationalize until six or seven. In our church, the age of eight is what we call the "age of accountability." At that age, a child is able to choose to be baptised, or not. And it is believed they begin to have a greater understanding of themselves, and their deeds. It proves nothing, but I thought it was interesting.
I do as well. Have their ever been any children who didn't wish to be baptised? How does your church feel about exploring, or even just learning about, other faiths? I realise you may not be comfortable making an official statement about them. If that's the case, then what do you believe, based on your observations?
Leo, thanks for the very indepth description. While I have not heard anything about such things in Canada, I have read (a long time ago, mind you) a few articles somewhere that a Muslim population was attempting to have civil cases ejudicated under Sharia law (divorces, property suits, etc.) I can't find them any more, but it was more than concept that I find intriguing.
Tiff, I don't know if I'm in a position to make an "official statement, but this I can say. one of the tennants of our religion is to obtain as much education as possible. This means not only scholastic education, but practical, intellectual, and spiritual. The fundimental principle of our religion is Faith in and a testamony of God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost. But that faith is not meant to be blind faith. We are not asked to take the Bible, and by extention the Book of Mormon and other scriptures at face value. So many Christians pick and choose bits of the Bible to focus on, as do those opposing its words. We spend our entire lives studying the old and new testament, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and the words of our prophets and other church authorities. We are taught to cross-reference, and analyze scripture - essentially this means seeing the whole picture the scriptures present. Much of our understandings come from the scriptures themselves, and the personal revelations delivered by our studies, and the Holy Ghost, and modern-day revelations by our prophets. Yes, we do believe that, as in times of old, there are prophets called by God to teach. Our current one is Thomas S. Monson, and I'd like to think even naysayers would find it very difficult to find fault with the things he's done, adn the things he says. I tell you all of this in order to paint as vivid a picture as I can.
About other religions: My Church, like I suppose many Christian churches does believe itself to embody the fullness of the Gospel as Jesus himself intended it, and how it existed shortly after his crusifiction and asscention. However, we do not turn our noses down at other religions. We believe many religions hold many aspects of truth. Furthermore, we are not meant to contend doctrine. "We reserve the rite to worship almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and we allow all men (humans) the same privoledge. Let them worship how, what, and where they may." Of course it goes without saying that not all of us follow such tennants. We are still human, and we make mistakes.
So in answer to your question ... finally. I myself fully intend to raise my children in the gospel as well as I am able. That said, I will teach them to respect all religions, to ask questions, and to learn for themselves if the things taught in our church are true. If they want to study other religions, great! I myself am fascinated with other cultures and their faiths. If they decide this path is not the right path for them, if they choose another religion; even if they become atheist, I admit I will be very sad, because I will wonder if maybe I didn't teach them right. But! And I can not stress this enough. I will love and accept them. And I will do my very best to be a good example. But I will also teach them to stand proud of their beliefs. And no matter what they believe, I want them to believe it with their whole heart. One of the covenants we make with God upon our baptism is to "strive" to do our very best. That's liberally paraphrasing, but it's true. And so that is what I will teach my children. This last is not church doctrine, but I personally believe all religions originate from the same source.
Civil law is still governmed by law though. So, I'm sure there probably are individuals who wanted such things. But even were a court to be sympathetic, they simply cannot since their hands are tied by the real laws that do exist.
The only exceptions to some of these situations are the Native tribal nations on reservations, and I am not even sure how far those limitations go. There are a lot of exemptions made for religious people in America: faith healers killing babies due to medical neglect getting off on account of their religion, etc. It's ironic to me that the same fundamentalist outlets who protect the rights of these faith-killer terrorists then turn around and magnify these sorts of things as though we were trying to institute Shariah law.
I'm certainly glad our government has switftly dealt with those who engage in so-called honor killings and the like, other terrorist acts. Those are real, their ramifications are real, and so were the big guns who made them stop. Too bad we can't go in like that on the faith-killing terrorists also, a group who has a special-needs type status in our nation and is supported by the very people who usually bring up the Muslim terrorists. Let's be consistent, people.
People often do things in the name of some so called god. It's all just a way to control the masses.
Religion usually has a set God, but the problem is like politics, there are different interpretations, opinions, and beliefs.
I am a Christian but don't believe in pushing views off on anyone. I do believe, in my opinion, that prayinh in public school would be great. I do agree with someone else here that stated if you want your children to have that kind of education there are plenty of Christian schools around for them to go to.
BG, please tell me how being sad if any future children you may have should be anything other than morman as you are, is loving them unconditionally.
as a parent, I'd think wanting the best for him/her includes the understanding that they likely won't subscribe to any, or every single belief you hope they will, or that you hold yourself.
in my experience, this is where parents/those who hope to be parents go wrong. they have certain expectations about how they'll raise their children, and when things turn out the opposite of how they envisioned them, they end up not being able to handle reality...so much so, that the child ends up being disowned/made to feel worthless, all due to freely embracing the individuality their parents never wanted them to have.
Yes verry well said chelsae.
I just want to clear something up here. The law never says that you are not allowed to pray in school. If you want to pray in school, or your child wants to pray in school, they are more than welcome to. However, what is not allowed, is for the teacher to say that they are going to be praying. You can't make prayer manditory or obligatory. Prayer is not illegal in school.
Of course. I did it all the time when I was forced to live at the braille jail. Please god, don't let the cafeteria food suck today.
Happy Heart, based on your posting above, it appears as though you expect all parents who love their kids unconditionally never to feel sad or disappointed in their choices. That is not unconditional love, that's denial of truth. As someone who wants to stay true to herself, would you not agree that shoving down any feelings of disappointment and pretending they didn't exist is not being honest and truthful with oneself? So even the feelings of disappointment - the feelings, mind you - are not loving your child unconditionally?
there's a difference between being disappointed, say, cause your child wasn't measuring up to him or her full potential, and being disappointed cause they don't subscribe to your particular religion, or any religion at all. a big diffference, I might add.
You can be disappointed all you want. I would be very disappointed if my child came home from school one day and told me he or she was now going to be Christian because a bunch of kids at school believed it. I would most definitely sit the child down and have a long talk about the difference between believing because you want to, and believing because everyone else is, and you want to fit in. I would also inquire as to whether or not the kids at school spoke of why they believed the way they did. Was it what they were taught, or how they felt in their heart of hearts? Now, having said that, if, after all this, my child still wanted to believe in a God, I would not let my disappointment inhibit his or her freedom. If adults are entitled to freedom of belief, so, too, should be children. that's just it. Disappointment is one thing. You can't turn feelings on and off like a tap. What you can do is insure those feelings never turn into orders or demands, and that they never inhibit your ability to love your child regardless.
exactly what I meant to say, Jess.
Thank you, The_Blind_Guardian, for your well-thought-out and heartfelt post. Truly, this is a touching example of tolerance and bridge-building among religions. I wish more people used this approach to faith. I especially like the scholarly aspects, and not believing blindly, as well as the idea that exploring other faiths is acceptable.
LeoGuardian, I have to agree with you. Laws must be based on logic and general concent, not on religion. This is especially true in a country with so many faiths. I actually heard of a case in Canada where Muslim women who were becoming Canadian citizens were angered that they had to remove their veils for the swearing in ceremony. I respect their faith, but they chose to become citizens of a predominantly nonMuslim country, and the law there states that the faces of those taking the citizenship oath must be shown! As for those who get away with murdering children on account of religion, I think that's sick. Granted, I'm not a fan of synthetic medicine, and I do think there are cases when parents need to put their feet down. But if your child has a life-threatening or even a very dangerous illness, and if synthetic medicine can cure him, you'd better let him have it, or you'll become a killer, and no amount of religious doctrine should be able to excuse that. Naturally, i find honour killings to be repulsive as well.
happy heart, what is wrong with being sad that your child didn't choose to follow the faith that you taught him? It's not the same as hating him. It's like saying "that's too bad" not "I hate your guts and I never want to speak with you again unless you convert." Being sad about something doesn't mean you love your child any less. Why is it any different whether you're disappointed about grades or about religion? Yes, I suppose one is more serious, but it shouldn't make you think differently about your child. OceanDream,, I think you hit the nail on the head. You also pretty much said the same thing as The_Blind_Guardian. You would encourage your child to think about his decision, and then, if he still chose to follow the Christian faith, you'd let it be. There's nothing wrong with that.
I think religion is way to political, if you get my meaning.
I think prayers in schools and meetings should be replaced by a moment of silence, which religious people can use to pray or think, and the non-religious can use to think.
People should be able to discuss and express their religions and beliefs in public places (including work environments). I think employers who ban it do so because such discussion and expression can make people uncomfortable. I think those people need to toughen up.
On the subject of people being able to back up their beliefs, I think people should reconsider their beliefs if when challenged, they struggle to defend their beliefs.
why is it different? cause, as I stated, having such expectations for your child such as what religion they'll subscribe to is wrong. it's wrong to not understand, embrace, and accept that just like you, the adult, comes with your own individuality, so, too, will/does your child.
I think there are so many better things we could put school time toward than a moment of silence. Like teaching our kids, that would really be nice if they started doing that a bit more, but that is for another topic.
A few thoughts. BG, while I am not trying to say that your little division of the morman church is not all nicy nice touchy feely, I know far too many mormans to believe that is true of your church. Salt lake city utah has more homeless gay teenagers than any other city in the country because they were kicked out of morman homes. You can look up letters written by people who had to fight, and when I say fight, I'm talking court battles, to get the morman church to leave them alone when they became an atheist. I've heard of people being stalked by visitors and callers sent by the morman church to try to get them to return to the fold. I've known people who were disowned by there family for being gay, or for being atheist, or for being both. I know loving couples that have been completely abandoned by their families because one was morman and one was not. So while your little circle may be nice, the church itself clearly isn't.
Finally, there is a huge difference between being disappointed in a child, and abandoning a child in any way. For example, if your child told you he was gay, would it change how you feel about him? For me, no, not in the slightest. Yet I know people who have been disowned. There was actuallly a man who posted a letter from his father on a forum I frequent in which his father disowns him because of his homosexuality.
There is a group of children called september's children, or the september suicides, who killed themselves because they were bullied by friends and families for being gay. People are tortured in sudo-psychiatric experiments trying to turn them straight by the power of christ.
So when you reach levels like this, all of which are based on religion by the way, no one hates gays for any other reason than religion, you have crossed a line that should never have been crossed. You have gone from being disappointed, to being heartless.
See, this is something I've always been curious about. Are there certain properties of a school setting or the school building itself which make a prayer said from there so much more special and meaningful than one said or whatever in somebody's home or at their place of worship? Now granted, the people that I hear the most about this praying in school thing are anonymous writers of chain letters, but they claim that since prayer, that is, prayer lead by a teacher or school official and the whole class recites a set text every day, that kind of thing, when that was taken out of school, then and only then did all the violence and school shootings and everything wrong with everything start, and the sky fell once more, and oh wouldn't everything be all better if we started doing this again? It's silly to me, it's wishful thinking, it's if-then-maybe thinking, and it depends on every single child believing in the prayers and seeing them as right. No room for question or rebellion, everybody agrees or else one does not get the desired magical results.
Senior, I like the moment of silence. It seems like the perfect solution to the problem, to me at least. Even if someone just wanted to quietly go over homework, review for a test, or relax before class started, he could do that. As I see it, the problem with discussing such things at work is that there are some who don't merely discuss religion. Instead, they start prosyletising i.e. trying to convert others to their way of thinking. Certainly, that would make most people uncomfortable, and it's not a matter of toughening up in those cases, but of wishing to be respected. I also agree with you on beliefs. One of the great things about debating is that it often makes you rethinking your ideas and presents you with new ones. it's then up to you whether you wish to accept or reject them. But certainly, if you're left questioning your own beliefs, you should discover why that is so and if you can back them up in some way.
happy heart, I think therein lies the difference. You expect your child to have good grades, to be well-behaved etc. But wishing for him to follow the same religion as you is just that, a wish, a hope, something that would be nice. It's not something demanded of him, just something you'd like to pas on if you can. Of course, should he choose differently, you should still love and accept him, whether or not you personally believe in the religion (or lack there of) that he chose for himself. If my child told me that he was gay, I wouldn't abandon him for it. I would wish him well and hope that he found someone to love him, just as I would if he were a heterosexual. SilverLightning, I agree with you about crossing the line in such instances. Some of those things you described were downright horrifying and unimaginable to me.
I also think that the moment of silence is the best compromise.
If my child didn't subscribe to my beliefs, and had valid/logical reasons for the ones they had, why would I be sad? they found a way to be happy and content. As a parent, I would encourage them to do what makes them happy as long as it doesn't harm others. Being a parent i would do my best to be open to helping them threw those struggles as they come, and giving them an honest education about religion/the ways of life. Apart from explaining my views, I know trying not to influence their choices would be hard, but in my opinion, its the right thing to do. Keeping my bias to my self with in reason would give him or her the freedom they needed to make a choice for them. After all, its that choice they live with, not I.
While my mother and adoptive father expressed their beliefs to me, they never forced me to pick a side. Instead they encouraged me to make my own choices after doing my own research. In their eyes, as long as my beliefs were moral/just, my happyness/contentment ment more to them than shoehorning me in to a system I may or may not believe in.
this is one of the things I believe my parents got right.
exactly my point, James.
Ocean Dream, thank you. That was along the lines of what I would have said regarding the disappointment factor. The fact is, Happy Heart, there is a very big difference between being personally disappointed in a child's decisions and disowning, hating, belittling or condemning them. If my children choose to reject the faith I so believe in, yes, it will make me sad in a way. But that will not change how I feel about my children. I will love them, and will still want the best for them. If my child were to become gay, yes I would be disappointed, because I do not believe in that lifestyle, and I never have. That said, there is a huge difference between not agreeing with a person's lifestyle and considering that person a terrible or immoral person. I have absolutely nothing against people who are gay. Nothing. And the one thing that pisses me right off is being called homophobic or intollerant just because I don't agree with the lifestyle. but that's a rant for another topic. The point is, we are all made up of the sum of our experiences and understandings. I will be teaching my children about the gospel so that they at least have the choice to believe it or not. . I don't want them to believe it just because my wife and I do though. That's not real faith. I want them to come to believe it because of their experiences, as I have. And if they don't, I'm still going to love them. And I'm not going to hold it over their heads, disown, condemn or make their lives miserable.
And that leads me to Your post, Lightning. I have absolutely no doubt that many of the things - perhaps even all the things you say about the experiences you've had with Mormons is true. And I find it sickening. Not that you braught it up, because it's very relevant. I've heard some terrible things too, and not just from the Mormons. But it makes me sick because it's so backwards compared to the gospel in which its purpetrators "apparently" believe. I don't really care how many people you've heard of doing these things Lightning. Because the truth is, all that condemnation, all that hatred, that's in direct violation of the gospel. We are not judges over others. It is not our place, nor do we have any rite to judge them because we have absolutely no idea of their circumstances. You can't fairly judge anyone without fully comprehending their motivations, hearts and minds. And we can't do that. We are to be tolerant, understanding, loving and peaceful. This is idealistic, yes, but these are the commandments God has set forth for us. And everything you've been accusing not only my church, but all religion of doing are the results of people, not God, or his laws. I'm not trying to invalidate your concerns, because they are very valid. These reasons you bring forth are the very reasons Our prophet and other general authorities, bishops, teachers, scriptures and Holy Ghost all cry out to learn, and to embrace this gospel; to take it into our heart and truly live it, not just say we live it. Sure you could argue that God teaches us to do some pretty messed up stuff in the Old Testament; you've braught that argument up before. But I've said before and I'll say it again, that time is far removed from us today. It was written for another people in a very, very different time, and much of its context is not always that obvious.
In closing I have only this to say. I have a responsibility to God, myself and the coming generations to strive to be a good example of Christ-like attributes. And if I am not doing that, then I have a lot more work to do. But I, like all of us am only human. And this goes for every other believer in the faith too. And there are those individuals now, as in times of old who are sorely perverting the word of God and making a dangerous mockery of it.
*snores*
BG, I know the difference between disappointment, and flat out disowning someone. there was no need for you to explain a matter of which I'm all too familiar with, as though I've never heard of the difference in my life.
But see BG, that is the main problem I have with christians who raise children, and as an extention, christianity itself. You've said in your post that those people aren't following the true word, I am. I'm right they're wrong, don't follow them, follow me. But then, if you ask the mormons on ranches raping twelve year olds, they go, "I'm right, they're wrong. Don't follow them, follow me". You both say the exact same thing.
Plus, for your claim to be true, what you're basically saying is, "I've got this direct telephone line to God. He calls me every sunday, and we have a chat, and he told me to follow this doctrine, and not that one." You're being, to be blunt, highly conceited. And to raise a child in that mindset is, I feel, harmful to the child.
What will you do when you raise your child in the mormon faith, and they see the other sects of your belief? Will you say, "Well they're fake mormons little bobby, don't believe in them." Will you condemn other faiths, as you've claimed time and time again not to do?
Claiming that something else is not the real faith, and yours is the real faith, is condemning, and bordering on hating, the faith. Because everyone knows what happens to people who don't follow the true faith of god. So while you may abhore people who say that others are going to hell, you just did it by proxy. By saying that your faith is the only true faith, and the other mormons are not following the right scripture, you are saying that they are going to hell. Its a curse in kind words. Don't pass that kind of thinking on to your children BG. Don't teach children to judge and compare and be biggoted like their parents. Lets raise a new, better, more friendly generation. One that is better than the one we have.
very well stated, Cody.
for once, bg, stop saying with words you'll act this and that way. if you haven't noticed, none of us believe you. not just that, but, in case you haven't learned yet, showing is much better than telling.
as was said, if you should ever have children, what will you do when they come to you and claim there's no god, or that they believe in a different one than you?
I know I've asked in a previous post, but to be honest, I don't, for a second, believe you'd support them wholeheartedly. from the way you've conducted yourself here and on other topics, I think you'd try your hardest to talk them out of it, and explain why believing in a higher power is the only way to live a successful/happy life.
please, as Cody said, think outside of the box, and allow yourself to realize what a better impact the world will have by raising your children by not condemning them, not discouraging them from having differing beliefs than you, and showing, rather than telling, what a supposedly fulfilling life you lead.
Happy, you asked, and I responded. You don't need to believe me. Why should you? I'm just words. You once said I never took the time to get to know you. Well, you don't know me either. You frankly have absolutely no way of varifying how I will treat the children I have.
Frankly I feel that both you and Lightning are so very anti-religious that even if I or anyone else showed, rather than told, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. But you're both Atheists - atheists who have obviously had a lot of difficulties with religious people. And yet have I once said - even hinted in fact that I think you're going to hell? No. And if I have, show me how, because it was very unintentional and I don't even believe it. But you probably won't do that. You disagree with my beliefs, and yet when I try to explain how I truly feel about those people who do all the things you seem to hate so badly, you essentially call me a liar. Oh, but wait, no you don't. You didn't actually say I'm a liar, you just said you didn't believe me. And I didn't say people are going to hell for not believing as I do. Maybe stop assuming? I've said many times that things aren't that simple. I don't have all the answers. I could be completely wrong, and everything I've ever felt to the contrary could be all in my head. But it is our actions that define who we are. It is how we treat people that matters in the end, whether it turns out that we'll have to answer for the deeds of our life or not. I don't have a direct link to God, but I have a lot of faith in the leaders of my church who do. And they have never once said or done anything that violates the gospel as I see it. If they ever do; if some day they condone the very sins the scriptures warn us against, well, then I'll have to seriously reconsider their guidance, or even my religion as a whole. But It hasn't happened yet, and I'm not worried. I don't care if you think me believing that there are people out there who actually talk to god somehow or some way is stupid. And no, I don't believe this interpretation of the gospel is right because someone told me to. I believe in it because Jesus Christ was a being of love, peace and kindness who sacrificed himself that we may live on. To me, none of the horendous deeds you've put forth are in line with the teachings of such a being. no raping, murdering or unrighteous judgment is Godly. I don't care what mormons you heard about doing any of that crap. I'm sure it happens somewhere, if it wasn't sensationalized by the media that is. They do not make up the whole, or even the majority. I have just as much problem with those kinds of "Christians" as you do. More-so perhaps, because they make being a Christian a lot harder because we're constantly having to repair the damage they cause.
By the way, what are you two going to do if one day you choose to have children, and they decide whole-heartedly, using their intelligence and hearts, to believe in one religion or another? Are you going to raise them believing as you do, and being so anti-religion as you are? Or are you going to let them choose for themselves as you would have everyone else do. or both? If they suddenly come to you one day and tell you they've embraced God (in whichever aspect), what are you going to say to them? Will they feel comfortable telling you? Because maybe I'm totally misinterpreting all of your words, or you are just as judgmental about religion and those who practice it as some of those very people who judge people like you for being atheist.
I suppose I never did officially answer your question. though given how credible you find my responses I highly doubt it matters. But I stand by what I said. I guess none of us can fully say how we'll act in a given situation without actually experiencing it, but I'm very confident I will act as I have said. I don't want to be one of those parents who disowns their children, or who don't have a good relationship with them.
Now that was an interesting spin on it. If, hypothetically, I had a child and he or she made claims to following some god I would be a bit disturbed. I'd be annoyed that my kid had some warped views. Would I disown him or her? Certainly not! Oh, I'd fume about it to myself. Hell, I'd even chuckle about it but I wouldn't disown.
I've been following this topic for a few weeks now. I think it's about time for me to contribute my 2 cents!
I'm a Catholic. I'm going to do my best to raise my children Catholic. It's my religion, and so it's the religion that they'll probably be hearing about for the first few years of their lives. Why? Cause they're -my- children, not -your- children. They'll be able to learn about other religions, such a thing cannot be stopped, nor should it be stopped. However, I will tell them that I am a Catholic, and teach the Catholic beliefs in my household, because as I said, they're -my- kids.
Furthermore, my religion believes that people who don't follow the teachings of Jesus will go to hell. You don't have a religion or any beliefs. Therefore, you have your opinion, I have mine. Might my opinion be offensive to you because I think you're goign to go to hell when you die? Perhaps. Might your opinion be offensive to me? Quite frankly, I don't really care much about it either way.
What is the point of all of this, you ask? The point is that religious debates have been ongoing for years, decades, centuries. Since the dawn of time itself. I highly doubt that we're going to resolve those beliefs on a forum like the zone where most of you will likely stay behind your keyboards and blast anyone who contradicts your views.
Sure, I'd be frustrated, and honestly I'd wonder where I went wrong in teaching them to be thinking, reasonable people, but never would I treat them any differently for it. If they wanted to go to church, I'd take them, or find someone to take them. Its not really that difficult to accept differing beliefs.
BG, I have to wonder though. If you don't think you have all the answers, and you don't think gays or people who are atheist are going to hell, what good is the bible to you? Cuz I can tell you, it says that stuff in it. Do you not believe it, or do you think its mistranslated? Is it just suggestions? What is your opinion on it if you don't actuallly believe what it specifically says?
I don't see condemning those who hate and twist the words of a religion as wrong. If someone claimed to be Asklepios, and tried to convince other of it by prommising them cures from presently incurable things, if only they give x amount of money, you can bet that the rest of us would call him out on it. That's not the way for a follower of The Gods to behave. Likewise, if someone started killing others and claiming Ares told him to do it, we would certainly be horrified and would speak out. So yes, in certain instances, there are things which are clearly wrong and ways in which you shouldn't act in the name of a religion.
I don't see how the two of you came to those conclusions about what The_Blind_Guardian said. He went out of his way to explain that he wouldn't treat his children badly, disown them, condemn them, etc. if they chose not to follow his faith. And since you now seem to believe that people shouldn't say what they'll do, but rather, show it, you should recant what you said to me about my hypothetical actions. After all, I didn't do them. SilverLightning, I'm actually surprised that you would be so tolerant with your children. I thought you would rant and rail against them. "Its not really that difficult to accept differing beliefs." Interesting quote!
maddog, I feel the same way about my hypothetical son. He would definitely learn about Hellenic Polytheism growing up. I wouldn't force him to participate in rituals etc. but I would hope that he would at least be curious about them. Certainly, he would learn the myths, the language *at least the modern forms), and the history. But part of that is just being a patriot, and he could do with that knowledge no matter what religion (or none) he eventually chooses to follow.
You're surprised that I'd be a good parent and not condemn them for making a decision? No wonder you hold the opinions you do.
you're surprised that both of us would make such good parents? well, I can't say I'm surprised, given what warped views you all seem to think we have cause of our outspokenness.
and, guess what, BG? contrary to this idea that you have regarding the difficulty of being a loving, caring, compassionate, understanding, honest parent who teaches their child the best he/she can, it really isn't as hard as your little mind assumes it may be.
will it come with its frustrating days? sure. but, just as Cody said, if my child came to me and said they believed in god when they're old enough and can ask questions, yes, we'd have a discussion. a proper one, mind you. there wouldn't be any of me trying to talk him/her out of it. I'd simply encourage questions, answer to the best of my ability, and most importantly, make sure him or her knows without question that I'll always love them, and don't think any less of them cause they hold differing beliefs than I do.
see? it really isn't/wouldn't be that hard.
To return to the "moment of silence" topic (and maybe circle around the minefield), I totally disagree with the idea that school should be interupted for this moment of silence. Firstly, have you seen what its like to make thousands of adolescents be quiet. If you don't know, it's called impossible. And then, everyone will know that this is just the politically correct thing as praying. People will disregard it. In the high school I went to, we had a weekly pledge of aliegance. Everyone ignored it. Were they really unpatriotic? Probably a few of them. Mostly, it was used as a time to pack up from that class, move to the door, and go to the next class. This enforced silent moment would be a gigantic waste of time, time that could be used in much more important ways. We could continue to learn, for example. That would be my suggestion. There's a mine, there's a mine. You guys really did a number on this place. Anyway, interesting thermonuclear wa ... wait I mean debate.
I do see your point about the moment of silence. I just thought it would be a good compromise. And cody and Chelsae, your posts did sort of get some of us to wonder about the type of parents you'd make. Silly, perhaps. But it's not like we saw anything but anger and distaste from you.
no, you perceived you saw anger and distaste from us. big difference from what actually is.
Question still remains unanswered though. Any idea why even the moment of silence is necessary as part of a school day? There's a minute or a moment or a whatever that could well be spent learning stuff, but no, we have to pretend we're praying for a reason that I guess exists but is not easy to put into words. Ah, I have a reason. How about this. It's something silly the grown-ups think kids should do. LOL!
No, the moment of silence would be to shut up the people who complain about no prayer in the school. You want prayer? Okay, your child is now robbed of learning. Good parenting! Oh, and Chelsae, perception is really all we have to go on online.
no, perception is not. however, people's thoughts, opinions, and ideas sure are.
as for the moment of silence which I've been meaning to address, although I didn't participate in it myself during my school days, and despite the fact I think praying accomplishes nothing, if someone wants to pray silently, more power to them. as long as I don't have to hear it, it's fine.
I can see where you would assume that we would be bad parents from our posts, I won't hold that one against you. I will simply poit out the fact that you all are not, I assume, children. Thus, it is a little illogical to expect me to treat you as I would a child. If you meet a two-year-old, do you treat it the same as when you meet your coworkers? If so, do said coworkers frequently beat you up and shove your head in a toilet?
I'm pretty sure Tiff didn't say anything about you being bad parents. She said she finds the idea of you being tollerant of your child's differing beliefs surprising. Am I wrong, Tiff? Frankly I'm surprised too. But hey, I don't know you. I just know how you talk and act according to text.
As for my beliefs about hell and those people who go there, I've discussed that in a few previous topics. I see no reason to repeat myself. Maybe I'm wrong again, but even though you asked, I highly doubt either of you are at all interested except to have something to pick apart.
You're saying rape, murder and many other syns that Mormons/Christians propagate are not godly?
But hold on for a sec... If you've read the bible, you'd know just how many people god ordered killed in the name of god. Thus, we clearly have a contradiction between thou shalt not kill, and smite down these people in the name of the lord.
that's just the tip of the iceberg.
But in all seriousness, someone saying murder isn't godly when clearly it is, is pretty laughable.
Lets not even touch on how many people god kills himself by flooding the world, etc.
as I've said countless times, BG, you're very wrong. it's stupid that anyone would even think for a second that we'd ask something just for the hell of it. but, then again, why would I expect you to think any differently? you've never gotten to know any of us thus far, after all.
also, it wasn't the original poster who suggested we seemed like we'd be bad parents; it was margorp. so, maybe before you make assumptions that we're jumping down a certain person's throat, read through the posts carefully next time.
My appologies . It was Margurp. Though he didn't say he thought you'd be bad parents either, just that he wondered given that we see a lot of distaste and anger from you. Maybe it's not anger, but definately distaste and spite for sure.
As for not getting to know either of you? That's true. I've tried opening up dialogs with both of you, though admitedly only once. Though it's very difficult to really know where to begin with someone who I sense from their words looks down on me.
Stormwing, that's a valid question. The old testament is full of some pretty ... disturbing stories that on the surface seem very contradictory. The old Testament God definately didn't seem like the nicest of creators at times. That is one of the points of contention I really had to struggle with when joining, and even now. But I've done a lot of looking into this, because you're right, it seems at odds to what I'm saying. I've spoken on this at various times in the past, too, though in much older topics. In the interest of not putting Mr. Impricator to sleep again, I'll keep this very brief. I'd be happy to have a discussion at a later time though with better examples.
There is a great deal in the old Testament (and somewhat in the new testament) that sounds very terrible when taken at face value. A blanket example (though certainly not the best one) would be the great flood. God basically destroyed most of humanity, preserving, from what we currently understand, only a few handfuls of people. The problem is there's often a lot more to things than just the few verses or chapters these events take place in. It's important to look at the big picture when dealing with any scripture. That often means understanding the circumstances behind such occurrances. It also helps to have an eternal perspective,, which I realize is hard to do if you think all of this is a crock. Much of what was written was also written according to the perspectives of those who wrote it, but also in a vastly different time, and for a very different civilization than exists today. And one thing I've really noticed after reading the scriptures - all of them. Humanity really hasn't changed much since the dawn of recorded history. This is not, however the worst time in history by any means.
I realize that might not answer your question completely. If the topic is still relevant when I return (as I'm in a bit of a hurry) I'll see if I can do better.
No, you're not wrong. Considering how I've seen them act towards me and others on this board, I did find it surprising that they would be so tolerant of differing views. I was also surprised, and must thank you, SilverLightning, for acknowledging that I thought this way due to your posts.
The_Blind_Guardian, I, for one, would be interested in hearing your views on the contradictions in The Bible. I find the topic of religion to be fascinating, and also am interested in learning about how people deal with the views expressed, or actions done in, their sacred texts versus the contemporary world. That was an excellent point about these things being written for a different time and civilisation. Truly, as I said, I would love to dedicate a thread to this discussion.
I see what you mean reguarding prayer, Chelsae. If I don't have to listen to it I couldn't care less if a person prays in school.
The flood story is not unique to Genesis. It was copied from older myths. Got that? Myths. As in, not real.
I wonder if coppied is the correct word. I'd say perhaps mirrored, though I don't know exactly which mythology you're referring to. That is something I'm interested to hear about. I do find it very fascinating that so many stories from so many religions are so similar.
Tiff, thank you. I'd be happy to try and explain in a future thread. I think it's an important question to address as I said.
Babylonian
BG, if the bible is written for a different culture, why do you still read it as a gospil? The iliad was written for a diff... oh wait. The n was written for a diff... fuck, let me try again. The torrah was... no. Um... the book of the dead, that was written for a different culture, and we don't take it as gospil. So why do you still follow a thousand year old book that you freely admit wasn't written for this day and age? And seriously people, update your books. You wouldn't follow a science textbook from ancient egypt that says crocodile dung works as a contraceptive, why do you follow a spiritual book written around the same time? Seriously.
And he still hasn't presented us with solid evidence of Hebrew tribes in North America to substantiate the book of moron. No, that was not a typo.
Talking snakes? Yeah, it could happen. Well couldn't it?
I wholeheartedly disagree with those who say, based on my posts, I'd appear to be a bad parent. to each their own, but I fail to see it.
The story of the great flood is very similar to that in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Mesopotamian legend. There were multiple gods, and the circumstances were a little different, but it was generally the same. The chosen person was saved by collecting all the animals and making a boat, and the flood killed everyone else, and the person continued Earth's life as he knew it. That's the general premise in both works.
There are very very few original works in the bible. If you name a popular story from that book, you can find a myth that mirrors it from a few centuries before. Even the teachings of jesus, who people say is the greatest moral teacher of all time, stole everything he's famous for saying from Greek philosophers who wrote a couple centuries earlier. Its all just replication, and people think its the word of God. Its really rather sad.
I would say borrowed or modified. I have heard that there are various flood myths from around the world, and that there might be evidence to support the idea that there was an actual flood of epic proportions at some time in Earth's history. Unfortunately, i don't have the resources on this, so would need to track some down. But it really is an interesting subject, to say the least. synthesizer101, thanks for the clarification. I've heard of Gilgamesh, but have never read it. perhaps, I should do so.
SilverLightning, you have a way of asking questions that is quite offensive. Certainly, your point was an interesting one, but it could have been phrased with more civility. Oh wait. You're the one who believes that civility is as foolish as religion. Never mind. Anyway, yes, these texts were written for another culture. But they can still inspire us. It's like listening to the music from the past. I might choose to listen to said music on records, the original medium on which they were destributed, whereas another person will download it or buy a cd. The technology is different, but the recordings are still the same. This doesn't mean that I'll suddenly give up all of my modern technology so that i could live exactly as the singers did during that time. Likewise, we don't live in ancient times, so we don't follow exactly what our sacred texts say. But we can still follow enough, and still be inspired enough that they remain relevant for us today. All of that said, I definitely agree with you about The Bible stealing most of it's material from Greek and other sources. It's the most extreme version of syncretism.
getting offended is a choice. Cody presents the information how he presents it, just as the rest of us likewise do the same.
news flash: not everyone will like our various ways of presenting things. as has been said, though, and will be said again, that's life. if you aren't okay with that fact, maybe you should examine yourself.
original poster, perhaps you should do research. that'd be a better way to spend your time, I feel, than trying to tell others to act in what you deem to be a civil manner.
Being offended is not a choice, and anyone with a shred of decency would agree that the manner in which both of you present many of your arguments is, in fact, quite offensive, or at the very least disrespectful. The fact that you must, at times, resort to personal attacks makes me think that you're the ones who are in need of some self-examination.
I have absolutely no doubt that Many of the stories written in the bible appear in other works all over the world. It's something I've always been fascinated about actually. I've also wondered whether other cultures may have had flood stories and myths too. As for Jesus's teachings, I believe they appeared before too. I mean the entire book of Mormon, and a good portion of the Old Testament prophecy of Christ, and teach the very tennants he would come to teach. His teachings are nothing new. They've existed throughout the ages and have come from various sources. Even the Islamic faith shares a similar origin story to Christianity.
As for how I can follow a book that was not written for my day and age, that's simple (to me). Many of the biblical stories have valuable lessons which, while they were written for another generation, still apply to us. Most of Jesus Christ's parables, which is how he taught most, can easily be applied to our lives today. Plus, the Book of Mormon mirrors Jesus's teachings as another testament. The Doctrine and Covenants is a book of modern-day revelation which likewise has a great deal of relevance today, even though it too was written over a hundred years ago for the people of that time. The Pearl of Great Price clarifies many enigmatic or mistranslated stories in the Old Testament, such as the creation, and the fall of Adam and Eve. We have constant modern-day revelation from our prophet and his apostles, and those teachings likewise mirror the scripture. The LDS church is, we believe, merely the church that existed at the time of, and directly following Jesus Christ's ministry. That's a bold statement, I admit, but there are a great many examples of it in the New Testament. There's nothing all that new in our religion that isn't also in the Bible. Even the idea of The trinity being three distinct beings united in a single purpose, baptism for the dead, eternal marriage, and a more elaborate afterlife than a simple heaven and hell exist in the bible. But much of that truth was lost during the time when only select individuals could read or teach the scriptures. And then of course you have things like the Nicean Creed and, multiple translations ... All our church has done is uncover what already existed. So to me, a man who has a nasty tendancy to research, over-think and want to know the why and how of everything, it all just makes sense. And I realize that isn't the case for other people. And that's okay. It took me a long time to build a testamony of Jesus Christ, because I constantly questioned everything. And most of my questions were answered in a manner which made sense to me. Plus I've had my own personal experiences with things I really just can't explain with pure logic. I can also believe in it because the reason the church came about in the first place really hit home with me. I was agnaustic all my life, though I never really gave much thought to church shopping. When I was introduced to the LDS church's beliefs, everything slowly began falling into place.
As for solid evidence of migrant tribes of humans living on North and South America? No. I don't have any concrete evidence right now. My research has not yet taken me down that road. Certainly some ruins should have survived, even after the various calamities that occurred throughout the centuries. I've even heard, though I don't recall exactly what and where, that some dig sites have yielded up evidence. Right now all I know is this country wasn't empty when Columbus landed here, and some Americans whole-heartedly believe that Columbus wasn't actually the first one to discover the land. I admit I don't know much yet about that however. I do know there are documentaries and websites out there that do set out to prove the existence of such people, though there are also films which attempt to disprove them. So right now, no, I don't know. Certainly in the coming years I will attempt to find out, but I haven't gotten that far yet.
On another note, I really do have to agree a little with Happy heart about being offended. People will say whatever they will say, sometimes with the intent of offending and creating contention, but often times with no ill-intent. It is our choice to be offended by their words, or to take it all in stride. Certainly our own emotions, psychology and experience will play an enormous part in whether we take offence or not, but the choice is ultimately ours. Nobody can "make" us be offended. That isn't to excuse the people who spout off like overdriven douche mobiles. But the way in which we act often has consequences. So if we're going to act unpleasantly towards others, I think it will inevitably catch up with us.
In this case, I don't think that SilverLightning was deliberately trying to be offensive. It's just the way he comes off at times, and here, it's a shame, because his points were valid ones.
Poster, I'll spare one sentence for you, I don't give a shit if you're offended, so stop wasting my time with it.
Now, BG, I can respect that your bible and book of mormon have some nice stories that are applicable to our modern age. I myself find some of the bible inspiring, and even some of its poetry moving. However, the same could be said for the iliad, the odyssey, the torrah, the epic of gilgamesh, beowolf, the legends of king arthur, and a plethora of other books thhat have been written over the years. Simple beauty and inspiration the word of God do not make. Surely you must agree with this. So why do you not simply say, "Here's the bible and the book of mormon, I like them, I find them inspiring". I'd accept that and agree with you, minus the book of mormon. What I can't get on board with is the idea that they are the inspired word of god. Important books, sure, but not the word of god.
As for the america thing. If you ever meet a scholar who says anything involving columbus with the discovery of america, do one of two things. First, punch him in the face. Second, walk away and stop calling them a historian. Columbus, even by his own record, never even saw america, let alone discovered it. The vikings have been agreed to be the actual discoverers of america, though some argue the chinese were here a few centuries earlier, and some even claim king arthur and a band of celtic warriors made the voyage. However, most of the evidence points to the vikings.
Now, as for their being Jews here, there has never been a stitch of evidence for that anywhere. The pig, whose absense denotes a hebrew village, has been the staple in america since its founding. Nowhere is there evidence of a village without the bones of pigs being found in the scrap heap. It just doesn't happen. We have records of when the first jews came to america, and it was sixteen of them in the late sixteen hundreds.
Not only have there been no findings to support there being a hebrew village, there was supposedly a hebrew tribe. A tribe is almost impossible to hide. Yet, there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere.
I won't get into the beginnings of the mormon church, we've been there before, and you don't believe me. I just urge you to do research in a place not controlled by the mormon church. Don't go to church records. The mormon church has a long history of deletions and omitions and of simply destroying documents that put them in a bad light.
original poster, I'm not sure why you think we care that you find us offensive, but thanks for the laugh nonetheless.
for the record, I guess most people are indecent, according to you, original poster, since most individuals don't share some of the ignorant/incorrect perceptions some of you have of Cody and I.
I have a name, and it's neither Original Poster, nor Poster. You can either call me Eleni, or refer to my username, which is currently Tiffanitsa. I have afforded you the basic respect of at least referring to your username when addressing you. I'm sure that it's not too difficult for you to do the same, even if you have to copy/paste mine in to avoid writing it. Thank you.
Aww poor original poster. correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but I don't think anybody on here really gives a damn about you or your username, or whether or not you're upset or offended by what's been posted. If you don't like it original poster, don't write your twisted idiotic ideas on here for everyone to ridicule and laugh at. Use your typing skills to do something more productive, for example, like finding a therapist in your area?
I can call you whatever I damn well choose, original poster. would you like another bottle, now?
I just put three people on ignore. I refrained from doing this for the longest time, as it really does ruin the flow of conversation, and they did sometimes say things which were interesting. But I've had enough of the personal attacks, and the fact that they refuse to address me in a proper manner. So since they continually choose to act like children, I will treat them as such. Now we can get back to discussing religion. Those who merely disagree with me are fine and will not find themselves on that list. Certainly, I have been made to think about many aspects of my philosophy due to their posts, and I enjoy reading their viewpoints.
Wow, now that's one heck of a topic devolution. True colors never were so bright.
Lightning, I found your answer to my last post very interesting overall, and I'll try to comment on it later. I will say however that I have looked into some alternative sources of the LDS church's history. Some of it is very interesting, but I find a lot of it to be more bias than credible. So, if you have some credible sources that aren't out simply to mock or defame the church, do share. Yes church records are bias too, I'm well aware of that.
Tiff, I'm in complete agreement with you as to the conduct of some of the individuals on this board. It's true that they really don't give a rat's wrinkled rectum about what any of us think. I wouldnt' worry too much about it though. Conduct is more telling than words.
Now now, I didn't say I don't care what she thinks. Obviously I care a little about what she thinks, otherwise I wouldn't call her opinions sick and twisted. What I said was, I don't care if she's offended. She can just as easily get unoffended as she got offended. Or as the bill of nonrights puts it, "You do not have the right to not be offended."
BG, I'll try to find you some good stuff on the mormon church. One thing you have to realize though. The word biased doesn't mean that they don't agree with you. The word biased means that they ignore evidence in favor of their own conclusion. If they site sources, and they say something you disagree with, you're actually the one being biased.
Please read things about religion objectively. That throws out anything written by the church about the church, or the writings of the profits, and the writings of those who deny evidence. For example, the author of a biography of Joseph Smith who completely ignored the court records which can still be found as partaines to his fraud charges.
BG, if you can promise me that you will separate yourself from your beliefs and look at things objectively, I will find you as many sources as it is my power to find. However, if you can't, I'm not going to waste my time with it. Can you make me that promise?
I am quite objective. One thing that drives people nuts about me is how ... neutral I tend to be. I usually like to consider both sides before formulating an oppinion, even in circumstances where it might not be appropriate. I'm one who wants evidence as often as possible. I don't even believe what I hear on the news three quarters of the time.
The big problem I find is often so-called "evidence" is highly subjective. Especially in this day and age where information is not only highly available, but highly editable, it's very difficult to glean actual truth from things that appear to be true. I've red a great deal of anti-LDS literature. Some of it makes very convincing arguements debunking certain aspects. All a person needs to do is put down a few sources that sound credible and a lot of people will take it as truth. heck, look at Wikkipedia. I have no doubt you could find me compelling reasons to dismiss the church as a sham. The problem is, most of what I've read concerning how wrong the church is, and how terrible Smith was was written by people with an agenda, X-LDS or Anti-LDS. Like Satan himself, they use just enough factual information to make it believable, but just enough to make it fictional. Does that mean I think they're satanic? Not in the least. Its name escapes me, but there is a somewhat famous document out there which painted a very convincing picture of how the whole LDS thing "REALLY" happened, and who Smith "Really was". It was very compelling, and it deceived many people. Then some time later, the man who wrote it came forward and declared the entire manuscript a hoax.
I have no doubt you could find me many compelling sources, Lightning. I'm even interested to see what you come up with. Believe it or not, I really do try to relate to people like you and Happy. It saddens me that you were treated the way you have said by people who were followers of a benevolent gospel. As I said, I'm quite objective. But there's something that keeps me from being as objective as you'd like me to be. I've been through the LDS temple after having witnessed X-LDS "supposed" experienced inside, and they were nothing like how those people described. . I've witnessed first hand the healing and comforting power of the holy priesthood. I've seen what happpens when an entire church bands together for acommon humanitarian cause, or to pray for one of its fellows with real intent. I have never witnessed a divine visitation, never spoken with, heard, or seen angels, and never had a near-death experience. I've certainly never seen either the Father, or the Son - and for that I'm actually quite grateful. But I've definately felt the presence of the Holy Ghost. Everything I've learned, witnessed, and heard about testifies of the truth that Jesus Christ is absolutely a real being, and not just a comforting bed-time story. To you that is inconceivable, and probably stupid. And that's fair, because only a few years ago it would have been like that for me, too. Actual faith was something I struggled with obtaining for a while after I started investigating the church. I'm not as devout as someone who is as undeniably blessed as I find myself should be, but I'm slowly, ever-so-slowly getting there. And if all of this is just one big hoax, then there's some pretty safisticated minds - and technology at work here. And even if everything I've experienced truly is bollucks, the teachings of my church are still more than worth following, because they promote a healthier, kinder and more peaceful existence than I see a lot of my fellow humans living.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the "especially in this day and age" bit. Beforehand, people had to get their information from the knowledge priests, the Media and similar outlets, who by definition were biased.
We're all biased to some extent. So are the lower animals. But to be human is to be objective and rational. Any animal could have religious beliefs, but a human being possesses the ability to take those apart, reduce them to the sum of the work and not-so-working parts, and rearrange things.
By saying any animal can have religious beliefs here's what I mean:
My brother who is a biologist told me that they now have a generation of elephants - I forget where - who are no longer poached like they were in the 40s and 50s. And yet, they still teach their children to be aggressive towards human hunters. This is obviously advantageous, and you could now say it's a religious belief of sorts. Or will be in a few generations if it persists. After all, the immediate threat is past and so there needs to be some reinforcements to maintain the traditions.
Had they the language to go along with it, they could easily concoct a mythology so that instead of a talking snake, they have a trumpeting biped who is the source of all evil. And since there's no ongoing poaching, an unseen hand must have stilled and maybe cursed the biped. A bit of a stretch yes. But, what they cannot do is rationally solve problems. Cody is asking you to do what the humans, not the lower animals, do. And honestly, it's a matter I try and ask of myself daily, since we're at once both rational and animal creatures, and obviously need both for different reasons. But the difference is, the rational is cultivated. I'm more rational now in my early 40s than I was in my early 20s. Much of that has to due with exercise of the rational part of myself.
Cody's just challenged you to a power lift, that is all.
No, I don't think your faith is a joke BG. I think it is simply, and I'm being honest here, a psychological stimulation which you are, for lack of a better term, addicted to. You feel this thing, and you call it the holy ghost, and it makes you feel good. So you think it must be real. Its as real to you as the big spotted pink elphants are to the guy who just shot up PCP. And in all actuality, scientific studies show that religious experiences trigger the same areas of the brain, and the same neurochemical releases as those psychotic drugs. Its all pretty much one big function of your brain.
I'm offering you AA of sorts.
just had to add that I agree with Cody about us caring what the OP thinks, to the extent that if she didn't have such sick and twisted views, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are now.
At first, I was a bit confused by the behaviour of animals and religion. After all, I thought, religion isn't a matter of survival. Those elephants adapted to an unnatural situation via instinct, which is to be agressive to the animals which were hurting them, in this case, humans. But then, I realised that in the past, before science, humans really did rely on religion for survival,. so it was essential that the rain god was pleased so that the crops would grow, for example. I suppose that, having grown up in a scientific society, I don't view things like that. Yes, I do believe in The Gods, but I can also see how They work through science. Certainly, this is an extremely thought-provoking idea. That is, religion for survival and religion after science is introduced. But I still feel that there are things which science can't answer which faith can, and regardless, even if I didn't have an official religion, I would still believe in some kind of higher power, as indeed, I did for most of my life.
Nope, they work in your head, not through science.
Getting offended is a choice? It seems to me that if you actually work at beeing offensive somebody will get offended. The fact that you can't let things go and continue to pick fights shows that you actually like to pick at people. Maybe you don't like to offend but you certainly don't give a damn if you do. That fact itself is quite offensive.
Note, she won't be able to tell you any of these questions that science supposedly can't answer. Who wants to bet?
Oh, and no, I don't care if I offend her, or you, or anyone. Look at it this way, if you meet someone who calls you a blind asshole, you can choose to let that offend you, or you can choose to ignore it. She chose to let our words offend her. That is not my problem, nor is it my fault, nor do I care, nor will I take back what I said because of that arbitrary decision on her part.
It goes back to what I said in her board post about respect. Me saying her opinions are sick and twisted is equally as offensive as me saying I believe her opinions to be rather incorrect and based on faulty premises, which she may desire at some point to reevaluate for better clarification and an ability to more strongly support her claims. Equally offensive, because they are saying the exact same thing. They both say that her opinions are a crock of shit and we all know it. One just makes you feel all happy in your no no square.
as usual, very well said, Cody.
I personally find blind asshole a laughable insult. However if anyone tries hard enough they can offend anyone.
Marg, you're a cum-guzzling cock-smoking rim-jobbing cunt wad! JK.
Lol, and you are the hemroid on the ass of all humanity. lololol
Amazing, you're choosing to not be offended. Thank you for proving my point.
It wasn't by choice, it's simply that those words don't hurt me and I know it is only a joke. Even if it wasn't one, again, the words don't hurt me.
And why don't those words hurt you? Why does one word hurt, and another word not hurt? Can you present a criteria by which we can measure the hurtfulness of one word as compares to another? Why is it that the word blink is offensive to some, but not to others. Can you make a chart of the painfulness of a word? Can you even tell me the answer to my first question?
The reason they don't hurt me, and I am chuckling as I write this, is because I don't find them offensive. I know I am not those things. If you call someone something and they get offended it means deep down they think they are those things or they really worry that they might be these horrible things people call them. That came out wierd, and I apologize, but you get my meaning.
Yes, and it proves my point. You choose whether or not a word hurts you. If I call you a pussy, you can then go, "Well I don't think I'm a pussy, that Cody's fulll of shit". I get to then say, "Well I don't think I'm fulll of shit, so he's a pussy". Neither of us get offended. You could also say, "Maybe I am a pussy, I don't know, does he have some definition of the word pussy I don't know about, what if I am a pussy, will I ever get laid again, I think I'll go cry into a wine cooler now". The choice is yours, offended or not. She chose to get offended, you didn't. Good for you, getting offended is pointless.
I can't agree with that. I've been called many things and I know, both on the surface and deep down, that I am none of them. I just don't like being disrespected.
And yet you don't do anything to actually gain respect, like not being a racist, twisted, sickening biggot, or just not putting the opinions which paint you as such out for everyone to view and comment on. This is so childish.
All of this back and forth is quite childish. It's nothing but a pissing contest. So...
*yawns*
Tech user, if you're so board by this topic, wy do you bother posting? That's an honest question, because it only serves to drag the topic back to the front of the boards.
Lightning, Happy, how exactly does one "earn respect" in your eyes? I mean you say how terrible some of us and our ideas are, but when you get right down to it, the only people I don't see you jumping all over are one another. I'm really curious about this. I've tried over and over to be civil, to explain myself, and to treat both of you with respect. But I'm starting to get the feeling the only people you respect are people who think, believe and to a point act the way you do. Maybe that's not true, but it's definatley how you come off through text a large part of the time. Now, I'm sorry that you've been through so much crap purpotrated by religious people, I really am. I meant everything I said about that in the past. But there's no reason to blanket all of us with such blatent disdain. Whatever happened to make you so anti-divine undoubtedly deserves your anger. But we here did not do it, and some of us are even trying to prove to you that religious people and our ideas aren't the terrible plague you seem to consider it. These are my words, not yours. But your disdain for all of that is shown clearly in both your words, and more importantly your tone. What's more, your blatent disregard for the perception others have towards you, and the casual manner in which you invalidate others beliefs and feelings is not doing a whole lot to represent atheism as a healthy alternative to anything. We all know you don't need to be religious to be a good person, but it wouldn't hurt to treat others the way you'd like to be treated. And if that's exactly what you're doing, I'll rest my case here and now, and we can continue with our regularly scheduled circle.
Understand that we do not attack the people. We attack the lies. We attack the fact that you subject impressionable children to your ways causing them to be delusional. All we here is some god taking credit for everything under the sun and I can't speak for anyone else but I find it vastly unsettling. Religions are only tearing us apart thus far and I don't see that ending anytime soon.
The_Blind_Guardian, it's times like these when I wish that The Zone had the like button, as on Facebook, and that I could hit it several times! Wow! That was a beautiful post and summed up everything I feel towards these people. margorp, I can't speak for anyone else, but though you're an atheist, I certainly can't put you in the same category as them. You have strong views, yes, but you're always respectful, which was why, until recently, this thread was going along smoothly. I will take partial responsibility for it's decline, when I asked these people why they act with such disrespect. Sadly, it broke the wonderful conversation we were having on the topic of religion.
I agree, Tiff.
Margurp, I can accept all that, and even agree with a big portion of it. When religion goes bad, it's very, very bad. All the things religion has been accused of, a vast majority of them are true. But they aren't the full story. Maybe they aren't even a quarter of the story, at least in this day and age. It's not the religion that poisons the world - at least not usually - it's the people practicing it. Sometimes its the individual, other times it's a sort of mob mentality. That's when religion - any religion - is dangerous. I agree whole-heartedly in speaking out against that kind of thing, and stearing people away from it. Because it is a problem for both people inside of its influence, and outside.
There's a ton of damage control to be done from centuries of religious misuse, and even more from mis-information circulating in the world today. When you look at all the crap that's happened, a vast majority of it has been purpotrated by people who are not following the most basic of God's commandments. I'm talking the big ten, and the implied ones that go along with them. Why does this happen? Because we're human. We screw up again, and again, and again. That doesn't mean the system that guides us is flaud. Certainly there are religions out there that accept and tolerate a lot more iniquity than others. To them, some of the terrible things that have happened are justified, and even praised. And that is a problem, and also worth speaking out against. But most religions - true or fiction - attempt to lead humanity far away from the evils that are corrupting the world. Take Christianity in its basest form, without divisions in its creed and identity. Imagine a world where we did not hate one another because of our individuality, creed or ideals. Imagine you could depend on the kindness of strangers, the strength of family, or the lasting joy of a relationship built on trust, understanding, communication and love - real love. Imagine if we didn't have to worry about bullying, stealing, rape, murder ... any of the terrible tragedies that splatter themselves over most of the top stories these days. Imagine all these things and more. This is the world the commandments are meant to create. A world where we depend on ourselves, one another, and a God who truly loves us. Is this far-fetched in your minds? It sure is in mine. Because the reality is, life really isn't much like that. Humans probably aren't capable of creating such a world on our own. I'm sure there are many of us that probably don't want it. We like our casual sex, our violence, our macabre dance with danger and forbidden passions. We want to believe we're in control of all fascets of reality. This is one absolute constant throughout the Christian and Jewish scriptures. Whenever a prophet tried to tell the people they were doing wrong, they were very harshly dealt with more often than not. Their punishment included murder in a variety of forms. My humble guess is nobody likes to be told they're living wrongly, even if their actions are causing tremendous discord in their society. I can't blame those people. Who were these prophets to say what is or isn't right? Well, for the sake of argument, let's say atheism is right, and all religion is a sham. If nothing else, these man-made rules are meant to keep us from a society where one's self is all that matters, and where it's okay to do whatever you want, however you want whenever you want. I think the worst thing about religion is really just how many different enterpretations there are. The story of Joseph smith, even if it is a complete hoax was at least meant to bring everyone together.
Margurp, you spoke of subjecting impressionable children to the corruption religion brings, and your statement is not without marrit. But how is secular teaching any better? Children and adults alike are subjected to things like rape, alcaholism, abuse, broken homes, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, any of a thousand terrible things that can and does destroy lives. Is every non-religious person in the world causing this? Not at all! But the media, actions and tone of the world at large is leading us down a very lazy, cluttered, busy, and dangerous road. Can suddenly believing or even following some religion make everything shiny and happy? Maybe,, but generally probably not unless the tennants were taken more seriously by a lot more people. And we who claim to follow them are especially in need of a kick in the pants. Because as you, and a lot of other people on this board have said time and time again, there are many times where religions are responsible for some really hanous acts.
I urge you to think back on the Bible. This is a book with a great deal of hate. I am speaking, mostly, of the old testament. I could sum it up thusly:
Follow the lord or suffer unmitigated punishment!
I don't think that is pleasant. I now turn your attention to the story of Job. This is my absolute favorite story because it shows how your god sinned. Yes, he said, "okay setan, I'll show you. Bring down afflictions on this man and I'll show you how faithful he is." Now why would a god who says don't fall into temptation fall into it himself. I could give you many more ways in which it all falls apart but there's not enough board space. I was raised Catholic so I assure you I'd be here forever.
In addition BG, your premise revolves around the idea that only atheists cause alcohol addiction ETC. Where, in actuality, it has been proven that countries with high populations of strongly religious people, this one at thhe forefront, have drastically higher rates of alcoholism, teen pregnancy, STDs, teen suicides, and a whole host of other things.
A big story in the news lately is the people who are committing suicide becauuse they are bullied for being gay. I'll give you three guesses who it is who thinks gays are sinful and unnatural and wrong. Even you yourself don't agree with the lifestyle, when you should be saying that you are perfectly fine with it, because it doesn't effect you.
Religions teach and celebrate hatred. The bible teaches you to go out and spread the word of god, when the word of god condemns people for things which are not provably sinful. You say that we enjoy our promiscuous sex because you view it as a bad thing, but you do't realize that many people live lives full of casual sex and enjoy it. Just because you view it as a sin, and the pages of your antiquated books tell you it is, doesn't actually make it so.
You are able to view the world through this miniscule lens of verses which you have tricked yourself into thinking is worldly. You claim that you like to search for answers, but all you do is dig deeper into the verses of two books which have given you the plasebo feel good mentality you are now cursed with. What's more you wish to continue that mindless brain-dead attitude into the next generation. You are a faith zombie who has managed to convince yourself that the horrible acts commanded and perpitrated by your god are only the misuses of humans. You hhave deluded yourself into being able to look at the bible and say "well it has some nice passages", and you tell me when I point out the terrible commandments in it that it is just being mistreated by humanity.
You see how religion is being quote unquote misused by humanity, its creator, and yet you don't support the idea of replacing it with a better system. That is the moral and intellectual equivolent of seeing a mass shooter with a gun and not wishing to have the gun taken away and replaced with a loaf of bread. You can somehow come to terms with this mentality and not loose sleep, a stance which completely baffles me.
Moreover, the ten commandments you cling to are only the first tne of 613, the last 603 of which you completely ignore and are forced to ignore because if you brought them into this discussion, or even acknowledged that you think them moral or followable I and my fellow atheists would tear you apart. Those are the commandments BG which tell you you're allowed to beat your slave as long as you don't knock his teeth out, that you're allowed to sell your daughter into sexual slavery, that if your daughter does not bear you children you are allowed to have her raped by a servant of your choosing, that if a girl is raped in the country then she is blameless, but if she's raped in the city she should be punished because she didn't scream loudly enough, that if a man does work on the sabbath he should be put to death (oh wait, that was the third commandment, one of the ones you claim is good). You are able to look at a list of things which are not actually good for a society, and iin the case that they are good for a society they are far too one dementional, and you are able to say they are good and wholesome, and you support teaching them to children. For example, honor thy father and thy mother. Well what if thy father is a man who beats you and your sister on a nearly daily basis, then goes to church on sunday and cries before the congregation, talking about how he's so sorry, and if his family will just support him and give him more time and more money he'll actually change; then just uses that time and money to buy more cigarettes and to feed his addictions while still beating his children? What kind of honor does that man deserve? Moreover, the commandment later is expanded upon to say that anyone who does not obey their parents should be put to death, and for some reason you think this is perfectly fine. And you can't even claim here BG that this is a misuse of the bible by humanity, because these are the commandments given by your god.
And before you pull out the tired line that the god of the old testament and the god of the new testament was different, I'd like to point out to you the fact that jesus himself said you're wrong. "I am not here to overthrow the laws, but to fulfill them". "Not an iota of the laws shall pass away". The translation of that into proper english BG is that the god of the new testament is still following the old rules. But you refuse to see it.
You somehow are able to read a book where millions of people are drowned for something people did hundreds of years earlier in a garden, where fourty-two children are ripped to pieces by shebears because they teased a passing profit, where entire towns are dimmolished and their inhabitants slaughtered or taken as slaves at the command of a so-called loving god, where trees are withered for not bearing fruit out of season by the son of that same so-called loving god, where every inhabitant of the world will one day be slaughtered by that so-called loivng god, where the first born of egypt was slaughtered in their beds by a so-called loving god, and what's more, that so-called loving god had caused the pharoah to do what he did so that the hebrews would thank god rather than thanking moses for leading them out of bondage, you are able to look at a book which contains all that and say that you think it should be read to children at bedtime, and that you find good and moral guidance in its pages. You are able to convince yourself that the life you live is actually following the commandments of god, and you have the gaul to say that other people are living lives apart from the commandments of god. You have the conceit required to condemn the lives of others, and to claim that you have the answers, or at the very least that you know what is and whta is not the true message of god. You are able to do that even in the face of the verse that says judge not lest ye be judged, or the one that says to not pick the speck of dust from your neighbor's eye, when you have a plank in your own.
What's more, you sit there and snydely imply that the life I live is not good enough simply because I don't bend the knee to a tyranical deity in the sky, when I have to explain your own bible to you. I am constantly told by you and others that my life is full of sin, or that I'm in love with my sinn, or that I'm going to hell, when its up to me to know the bible better than you do. You wouldn't believe how many christians I know who are so willing to condemn me for being an atheist, but aren't even willing to read the entirety of the book they claim to follow. It falls to me and my other atheists to educate you on the things you're missing. Then you we do, you somehow come up with an excuse that seems to clear you from all responsibility from the sins you have just been convicted of by your own ignorance, and yet still condemn me for living the life I am most happy with.
And what's more, you can actually somehow manage to wonderr how inn the world I can manage to not respect you. You want to know how to gain my respect BG, stop being a hippocrit, stop thinking you have all the answers, and stop promoting the teachings of a book you don't understand. Or at the very least, follow it to the letter. You want to know who has my respect BG, yes, my fellow atheists have my respect, or at least some of them, but the westburro baptists have my respect also, more of it than you do at the very least. Do I like them, know, I would fully support firing squads for what they do, but they don't try and sugarcoat the bible. They freely admit that the bible is a horrible book, tbc
They follow that terrible book to the letter. You don't have the courage to do that. You have to find some circuitous path through the verses, because you know some of them are wrong, and you can never bring yourself to admit that. Blame is easier to give than to receive BG, I freely admit that some of the blame for my life is on me, in fact all of it is, because its my life. You need a god that you can blame everything on. That is why you don't have my respect.
Hmmm didn't Jesus kind of have an obsession with wine? He also ran accross the desert with nothing but a loin cloth and a pare of sandals. Today, we'd spit on such a man.
Cody touched on some very awesome points in his last two posts, and for BG's sake, so he can hear it from two mouths instead of one, here goes, despite the fact I'm certain it'll go in one ear and out the other as he claims is likely the case with me and my fellow atheists.
firstly, BG, I've stated more times than I can count, throughout being active on these particular topics, that you're wrong in your assumption that I come here to either start drama, or find faults with people strictly for the sake of doing so.
you're dead wrong, actually, which I find quite sad, as I've also expressed on numerous occasions.
I come here cause I feel my opinions, experiences, and various other things through which I've learned, are valuable and valued. evidently not by you, but that's fine.
I value everything I say and am, and don't require an invisible sky daddy (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell me I'm putting out good into the world, that I'm a kind, loving, compassionate, moral person, who's full of life, fully enjoys participating in all it has to offer (yes, including sex outside of marriage), and who's eager to love/has plenty to give.
next, I'll never understand your wining/being so quick to claim that everything you are is being constantly stomped on by those who believe differently than you.
are your beliefs being pulled apart, and brutally so, at times? they absolutely are. however, if atheists such as myself and Cody didn't speak up, no one would. I mean, hell, even most of you who are religious would rather sit back and enjoy these good feelings given to you by god, than actually, you know, shamelessly talking about why you believe what you do.
and, I don't just mean talking about it; I mean backing it up with evidence. evidence that, in spite of how many times we've asked you to give, you fail to present it.
why is this? are you really so chicken shit as to not admit you don't have it? or, is it simply cause you don't want your beliefs challenged any longer, that you've decided to put up a front?
contrary to your popular belief, BG, yes, religion does, indeed, poison the world. raising children to believe in a higher power, instead of giving them tools to think for themselves, is more poisonous than I can even begin to say.
another thing I forgot to say, is the fact that, as an atheist, I take full responsibility for every single one of my actions. not just ones I deem worthy, for whatever reason, but every one that exists. you know why? cause, firstly, it's perhaps one of the most idiotic things I've heard when people say, "I've got god on my side. therefore, he can handle things for me, so I don't have to burden myself with them".
and, secondly, it's one of the greatest joys ever to know I'm honest to the core, will freely admit when I'm wrong, and if I've done something that unintentionally hurt someone.
third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that, at the end of the day, nothing gives me more comfort than knowing and embracing that I'm solely responsible for myself in every way.
so, when I say, do, or feel something, I'm not gonna blame another human being, much less a higher power I know doesn't exist, cause I know I did it, and I shouldn't be ashamed to admit whatever it happens to be.
and, BG, before you say, "oh, I've never said anything like that, I'd urge you to think again. in fact, I saw in a post just today, of which I can't quote exactly, but you said something to the affect of, "I don't have to take responsibility for myself, cause, in the end, god has things covered".
again, I was paraphrasing, lest you attempt to jump down my throat.
Agreed, Chelsae, well done. I particularly liked the sky daddy thing. lol! This idea that atheists do nothing but fumble about, not taking responsibility is simply bullshit.
Chelsea and Cody are not just respectful of one another: there are many of us who they do not pick apart. If their ideas challenge some of us, and if we've not yet arrived at answers, that can't rightly be called picking apart - not in the way you described.
I've said this on other posts, and probably on this post, but it doesn't seem to sink in, so here we go once more. For those of you who actually understand this, feel free to skip ahead, it won't hurt my feelings.
I don't, do not, have not, am not, will not, don't, begin by being disrespectful or by tearing people down. I will admit to a few acceptions, if the post is so full of idiocy that a reasonable answer cannot and should not be given, for example see the post about rights, but those are few and far between. For the most part, I respect someone until they give me reason not to. One of the ways to quickly lose my respect is to make me continuously repeat myself, so please don't make me type this again.
thanks, Cody; that's exactly how I feel/think.
leo, also very well said. I'm glad there are folks who seem to have no problem understanding Cody and I for who we truly are/what we present, despite the fact said people likely don't always agree with us.
in case anyone is curious, that's a huge way to earn my respect. being able to talk about our varying beliefs as adults who don't have to agree with one another, along with enjoying being challenged/made to think, not taking that particular action as an attack, crying persecution every time what someone believes in is called utter claptrap, or a genuine question is asked of people who are religious, which they refuse to answer based on an untrue assumption that it's just being asked cause we atheists simply wanna start drama.
just so we're even, some ways to get me to disrespect someone are as follows: not backing up claims that are made with evidence, then using the, "well, I know you won't believe them anyway, so why try", argument, and making assumptions of any kind, especially when you've never so much as talked to the people in volved.
those are just a few, but since BG asked, I answered...accurately.
I am surprized that bg hasn't responded.
if chelsea and cody start burning bibles, and breaking your church windows, then we can have a nice little chat about how they're disrespecting your beliefs, and your right to practice them. and I will agree with you, but only if anyone were to resort to those destructive measures.
In my honest opinion, there exists no reason what so ever to respect god. He is clearly a sinner and hypocrite. For several reasons it can be argued he's not omniscient at all. If you can liken god to any modern archetype in our culture, the only two that are actually fitting are the abusive authority figure, or a sociopath.
Honestly, he reminds me a lot of an abusive parent. Brutally punishing his children only to profess love, before hammering down another violent nearly fatal beating. there is nothing honorable about that. there isn't even anything moral about that.
Sociopath seems to also fit when you consider gods interaction with the humans. He sets rules that give him clear advantage, and just as easily manipulates them when he sees fit. should you question god, you're brutally punished, you're socially engineered by him to eventually either come to terms or die.
Don't argue that this is the society doing this, because if god has a plan for you, then its all clearly part of gods will. Oh, but what about free will? Doesn't that contradict the hole god has a plan for you thing?
what about the hundreds of thousands of additional contradictions?
Its easier to make a case for hitler being a moral person than god.
The only reason why God is so angry is that Mrs. God will not let him cavort and frolick with the more attractive demigoddesses, and he is locked out of his god-cave so can't even bring in the lesser gods for an earthling-watching party with the good nectar and ambrosia, not that cut-rate stuff Mrs. God says is low-fat. Stuff has no flavor and the texture is all off. Now you know why God is cranky. Oh, and the homosexuals are a scapegoat, he actually doesn't give a shit but has to blame somebody to save face.
hahahahaha lol! :)
Bible didn't say anything about Mrs. God, did it? That's because she's such an old battleaxe that she had all the bits that did mention her cut out. But here, I tell the absolute and unvarnished truth, received one day whilst I had a horrible pain in my foot and had to stay in bed. It was revealed to me, and I believe it, that God is actually quite a nice guy but is constantly brow-beaten and henpecked by Mrs. God, and you know why? Because Mr. God dared to inspire his profits to blame a woman for all the bad in the world, what with the piece of fruit with knowledge in it and the whole talking snake story and all. When Mrs. God heard this she was intensely majorly peedy-odeyed to say the very least and has not forgiven God for it ever since!
So wait, you're saying that God did all this because Mrs. God won't give him a blow job? Really, there's no cold shower in heaven?
Look, Mrs. God drove Mr. God to drink. That is why he sent his son to be killed. Alcoholism is nothing to laugh at and is a serious problem. You people need respect. lol!
Actually there is a "Mrs. God", but that's for a very different topic, and isn't something I (or really anyone I know of) know much about.
yeah, and Mrs. God wanted to have sex outside of marriage, cause, despite the fact that it was well known they were married, she refused to believe it. and, Mr. God was adamant about not allowing her to touch another male...so, she cheated on him with a female, which, he didn't consider cheating at all, since it was someone of the same sex.
Wow. You all sure put me in my place. Way to go! I applaud your knowledge, even if I don't personally agree with it.
Actually I have to say I agree with much of what you're all saying about God, Religion, and many other things. I've recently been reading the Old Testament quite thuroughly, and I have to admit to being stopped a few times by the goings on. But These sorts of doings in the Bible are exactly why I don't take the writings at face value; why I do, in fact, seek aditional sources. I can't look at you with a straight face and say there aren't times in the Bible where God doesn't do some questionable things, because then I'd be lying. But I will say in everything I've researched so far, there's been another layer to what's going on that might not immediately be obvious. There are reasons and clarifications that have greatly changed my perspectives on the things God did. One quick example of this occurs in Exodus. Certain versions of the bible say that God was the one that hardened Phaero's heart to make him go back on his word. But the version we follow says that in spite of all the increasing plagues, the Phaero hardened his own heart and went back on his word. So basically it just got worse and worse, and we all know - since we're all so well-versed in the scriptures - what happened to Phaero and his army at the climax of that event. Of course that brings up another question, why did God do that to Phaero in the first place? We can discuss that if you want, but I won't get into it right now. My point is there are certain areas in the bible that we shouldn't take at face value. Some are plain as day, others require clarification and study. We're meant to study, ponder, pray about and question the scriptures. At least we are in my church anyway. We need to consider the face value aspect and translation. I admit much of my understanding is perceptual. Could I be wrong? Could God be this wicked, sociopathic tyrant? Sure, it's possible. In that case, I'd really have to conceit that you Atheists are quite right. And I'll be happy to do so. But given all I've learned, and my understanding, I really don't think so. I don't dismiss difficult stories, I try to understand them. of course most of you won't believe that I guess. it goes against your own understanding of the scriptures. And that's fine. if you already don't believe - and in fact are anti-religious as at least one of you has confessed to being, why would you go out of your way to research anything to the contrary? But maybe you do, who knows. One of the reasons I, an agnaustic extremely skepticle of Christianity's credibility was drawn to the LDS church is because it gave reasons for things, even the difficult questions. We have a wealth of supplimentary material that seaks to make sense out of the scriptures. We aren't meant to have blind faith. Plus there is the whole modern-day revelation aspect. Most Christians scoff at that, and that's fine. It takes a lot of faith to believe there are men who are truly called of God, and whose input on matters spiritual are divinely inspired. But never have I encountered any of our leaders leading the church anywhere but towards a loving, more harmonious and peaceful existence. And I challenge any of you to present me with anything one of our prophets or apostles have said that says otherwise. I promise I'll definately read it.
Lightning, If I only focused on two scriptures, I admit I'd likely have come to the very same conclusions you have. As I've said before, it wasn't that long ago I'd be on your side, speaking out against all the barbarity and discord occurring in the bible and in the name of religion. Indeed, in my last post I did speak out against the evils that religion - all religion can bring, though it was not addressed. I never ever once said that Atheists are responsible for the evils in the world, nor that they can't lead moral lives, and I'll thank you all for refraining to put words in my mouth. I respect your intelligence, but I find a few of you twist my words quite frequently to suit your own arguements. If I've said something to make a hypocrit of myself, quote it if you're going to throw it in my face. Because it is possible either you didn't understand my meaning, or I phrased it very wrong. Either way I would like to explain myself. Because I want you all to realize that in spite of my faith in God, I have a real problem with the terrible things done in his name. It's obvious that you don't believe me and think I can't "serve two masters" so to speak. In the end I'm not here to convert you to my way of thinking. I'm merely trying to soften your perceptions that all of us think Atheism (and other things we might not agree with) are synonimous with hell, and that there are those of us who do want to stand against the evil done in the name of our ideals.
As for not taking responsibility, you're very wrong. We are all responsible for our actions, whether we're religious or not. I know that I and I alone are responsible for the way I act, think and behave. There's no "god will take care of all my wrong doings, so I can just do what I want". Some churches believe all you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus as your personal savior. Then you can do whatever you want as long as you just go to church and say you're sorry. But that's only partially true. We beleive Jesus paid the price for all the sins we have and will commit. No matter how good we will be, in an eternal perspective it will not be enough. Jesus will pay for us to return to our Father, but we must be willing to strive to do our best to live by the guidelines set forth. We must strive to do our best. And when we screw up - which we will, over and over - we must be willing to repent, foresake our sins - and if we fall back into them, - to do it again. The whole process is one of self-betterment. So no, we aren't without responsibility. And we will have to answer for the deeds we do. The intents of our hearts are just as important - or maybe moreso - as our deeds.
BG, you aren't here to convert us, yet, you're aiming to soften our perception? since you're obviously unaware, I'll tell you that that is, indeed, trying to convert us. you don't see us telling you that you should become an atheist for any given reason, do you? so, cut the crap, admit that your goal is to convert others to what you believe is the one true way, or shut up.
No, I'm really not. Happy, I accepted long ago that you don't believe in any of this, and likely never will. If you think I'm trying to convert you, you're welcome to think that way. It's true that I, in my capacity as a believer in Jesus Christ have been asked to spread the gospel. But I'm not one to press. If someone isn't interested in hearing it, I'm not going to throw it in their face. That's not healthy for them, me, or others perceptions of my religion. I'll talk about it (unless someone really just doesn't want to hear it), but I'm not trying to convert you. When I say I'm trying to soften your perceptions, I merely mean just that.
Ok, here's your quote BG, "Imagine all these things and more. This is the world the commandments are meant to create. A world where we depend on ourselves, one another, and a God who truly loves us. Is this far-fetched in your minds? It sure is in mine. Because the reality is, life really isn't much like that. Humans probably aren't capable of creating such a world on our own. I'm sure there are many of us that probably don't want it. We like our casual sex, our violence, our macabre dance with danger and forbidden passions. We want to believe we're in control of all fascets of reality."
To me, and feel free to correct me if I'm mistranslating, this passage is saying that sex and so on are bad, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have those things. But us humans couldn't do that without god. Well the people who live without god BG, are atheists. So you are saying that Atheists, that would be us, are livin in sin with our casual sex and macabre dances with danger, and the christians, that would be you, want to create a perfect world based on ten commandments. Parenthetically, those ten commandments you say would end a lot of the killing in the perfect little world, have a lot of killing in them BG. Have you ever looked at the punishments for breaking the commandment? Its pretty much always an event involving a bunch of people, a lot of big rocks, and one dead guy.
Let me see if I can give you a for instance that will better explain why I think you're god is provably a psychopath. Lets say that the Jews are back in Egypt under slavery, and you're god. You want to get all the Jews out of Egypt, but don't want to inhibit free will. What do you do?
Now, I can think of a few ideas right off the bat. First, transport all the jjews from Egypt to canaan, just poof them there. First, it would prove you are god, and no one will ever doubt you again. That's what you want as a god, you want people to not doubt you. You love them, and want them to love you back.
Next idea, make the jews look really really scary to the Egyptians. Granted, this has the danger of getting the jews killed, but I think if they all looked really scary, the egyptians would just want them gone. Maybe you could make all the jews giant for a little while, then once they've left, they could return to normal size. Remember, you're a god, you can do all this. You can literally do anything.
That's just two ideas, but I'm sure you can think of more. But look at what god did in the stories. He sends diseases, he turns all the water to blood, which means not only are the Egyptians going to die of thirst, but the jews are too. He sickens all the cattle, so now they're not only going to die of thirst, but they're going to starve to death. He sends storms of hail, frogs and locusts, which kill all the crops. So those egyptians who were vegetarians after the cattle died, they now die of starvation too. And as if that weren't bad enough, you kill every first born of Egypt. You kill them, slit there first-born throat with your godly blade. Now, in a way this seems like a mercy, assuming you kill them quickly, but its still an awful thing to do.
So, since we know what god did, and we as mere humans can think of many better ways to do it that wouldn't involve killing anyone, we can prove that god is a psychopath. Why does that not make sense?
right on, Cody.
Just because people were stoned to death for breaking the commandments doesn't mean it was in line with those commandments to do so. I'm not sure where you're getting that occurrance from, but feel free to quote it to give it some context if you like.
Thank you for bringing my own words to my attention. That's not at all what I meant, so let me attempt to explain. I'm not at all saying that atheists are the only ones doing - for lack of a better word - sinful things. There's just as many Christians doing the exact same things. In my mind, yes, casual sex (though certainly enjoyable) rape, murder, alcoholism, abuse, disrespect, mistrust, lying etc are definately wicked. And I definately think that the commandments, as my church understands and strives to follow them would undoubtedly put an end to such things and would lead us to a better world. But that isn't to say all atheists do all those things. Do I think you're a rapist, a murderer, a thief? No I most certainly do not. Are there Christians - Even Mormon Christians who are? Undoubtedly, sadly. Does my church condone such things? Not a bloody chance. Being a Christian doesn't automatically make you a good or bad person, and nor does being an atheist. Atheists are just as capable of living moral, upstanding lives.
As far as the Jews in Ejypt are concerned, that's certainly a difficult story, and one of which I've commented on previously. Translations aside, God did cause plagues, and it was undoubtedly downright brutal on the population, at least for the Ejyptions. God did give Phaero chance after chance to free the people, but each time, the Phaero decided, after first giving in, to ignore the warnings. So it got worse and worse for him. But why should the population suffer for the deeds of their monarch? I don't have an answer to that right this second except to ask,, how were the jews being treated by the Ejyptions? But what about the babies! How could God kill little babies! That's definately hard to read, even with the eternal perspective. It is believed that children, until they reach the age at which they become accountable for their actions are spotless before God. They are innocent. And so such children automatically rejoin the father. They will still have the opportunity to live, grow and progress in the eternity to come. Some might argue that they're luckier than we are because they never had to experience the cruelty that can happen here on earth. I personally am glad I got to live here. It's really hard to accept such things, because we don't really have a clear understanding of what our eternal existence means. But we do know that this time we have as mortals on earth is a probationary moment in what is to follow. Nevertheless, even with this, I can't deny this story and others like it are difficult to equate to a loving, benevolent God. It must be even harder for someone who reads this and sees only the suffering and death, and who also doesn't believe in anything beyond mortality.
Oh, it's more than just the BJ, Cody. Mrs. God won't let him do anything that's any fun at all. No cavorting outside of marriage with the demi-goddesses, since they're Christian and all and the sanctity of marriage and such, no hanging out in the now closed god-cave with the lesser gods to enjoy a little nectar and ambrosia whilst watching the earthling games, nothing like that. That's why he killed his kid, he couldn't have any fun so he doesn't see why anyone else should either.
Would it be out of bounds to say that I think he killed his kid because god told him too? I mean come on, it works for depressed mom's in texs, and really, what's the difference between god and depressed mom's in texas?
BG, the only explanation I can think of for your being able to say that the story doesn't fit with a loving god, but still calling the god that did it loving is this. I think that it has been so engrained in you that god is loving, that no matter what he does, he will always be loving. He could drown all the people on earth, which he did, he could kill all the first born of egypt, which he did, he could kill any hebrew who thought to ask moses where they were going when they were wandering around for fourty years, which he did, he could kill his only son, which he did, and he'd still be a loving god to you. That, BG, is comparable to stockholme syndrome.
BG, go read the book of Numbers. That thing about gathering firewood on the sabbath. God ordered the man to be stoned to death. So there's your example.
Wait a minute, what? God killed his kid because God told him to?
Yeah, follow me on this. God is sitting in his recliner one day, listening to Mrs. God bitch on and on about how he never does anything to help her with the baby. She's screaming and screaming and all god wants to do is watch people masterbate, (cuz apparently god does that, ask evangelist preachers). She just keeps nagging him though, and he keeps getting distracted from people masterbating. Finally, he gets so angry, that he goes temporarily insane, and starts talking to himself.
"God," he says to himself, "That son of yours is nothing but trouble. An all powerful father and all he can do is shit his heavenly diaper. Kill him God, kill your son. But wait, you gotta do it in a way that makes you look good. Send him to the humans, they'll kill him for you, but worship him at the same time. Then you can sit back and watch their guilty faces as they masterbate."
So God, cuz he told himself to do it, sends his son to the humans, who kill him, and he's left in peace for thirty-three years or so, which he uses to watch people masterbate. That's a believable story, right?
Dude, did you get your foot hurt and receive the holy word of Mrs. God, because I must have missed that part. Pain meds probably kicked in and I slept through it. I'll take your word for it, though, now I need coffee.
very excellent point, Cody, about BG's belief that god is always loving, no matter what he does, being so engrained in him that he fails to even have the copacity to see evil in him at all.
BG, just cause some of us choose to engage in casual sex, you're calling us wicked? gee, for being such a loving christian yourself, that's pretty judgmental, closed-minded, and screams "I'm better than you cause I don't practice that! and, even if I did, I wouldn't admit it, cause I can't knowingly display my hypocrcy to the world".
not just that, but, whether you see it this way or not, you're acting as if we're filthy and irresponsible human beings, since we have casual sex.
why is this? do you truly believe we have no concept of our actions, never thinking things through, freely doing them on impulse simply cause we have needs and want them to be met?
seriously, BG, after implying those things about people you don't even know, and have no intention of ever getting to know, do you still believe this loving god you claim to worship will love you so much, in spite of the way you've so inaccurately and close-mindedly judged us?
Now, I haven't had casual sex in over 2 month; haven't even held hands with anyone. So, is there a chance I can still be saved? or am I going to burn in hell for ever? How long do I have to go without sex in order to save myself from going to hell? lol!!!
Hell is in Michigan. You'll freeze.
Bg, I've tried to do my research, and well, I honestly just am not finding the same things. I honestly did try to give the hole christianity thing a fare shake, but there was just too much, way way to much that I couldn't come to terms with. I'm not anti religion, I just don't think peoples religious ideals should be used to shape society in any way that oppresses others views or freedoms.
I admit that, when taken out of contexts, certain quotes in mein Kampf make sense and sound decent. But calling Hitler a moral person is stretching things beyond belief. I would love to hear the arguments for that one! The whole mrs. God thing really made me laugh. I know some Christians would take it as blasphemy, but I also know you guys are joking.
I know that I've stated this elsehwhere, but it bares heavily on the current discussion. The thing about The Bible is that we don't have the originals, only copies of copies, written over centuries, and translated into different llanguages. So naturally, there are errors and omitions, some purposeful, to suit the motives of the translator/sponsor of the translation, and some honest human mistakes. From what I've heard, the most accurate version we have is in Greek. Then, there are all the other texts not included in the mainstream Bible. Admittedly, these were mostly written well after the death of Christ, but even one of the Gospels (John, I believe), was written a century later. At the time when the four gospels were officially accepted by The Church, there were at least 30 sacred texts floating around, some of which grately contradict the now mainstream ones. For those who have the time, I urge you to watch Banned from The Bible I and II, both on Youtube. Here are the books discussed in each.
Books from Banned from The Bible I and II
Part I
• The Life of Adam and Eve
• The Book of Enoch
• The Book of Jubilees
• The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
• Proto-Gospel of James
• The Gnostic Scriptures of Nag Hammadi
• The Gospel of Mary
• The Gospel of Nicodemus
• The Apocalypse of Peter
• Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
Part II
• The Testament of Solomon
• The Zohar (The Book of Splendor)
• The Alphabet of Ben-Sira
• Joseph and Aseneth
• The Septuagint
• Bel and the Dragon
• The Acts of Peter
• The Acts of Paul and Thecla
• Mar Saba letter and The Secret Gospel of Mark
• The Gospel of Judas
BG, so you admit that God isn't perfect. Don't you find that strange? I sure used to wonder why, in the book of acts, when Jesus put on his jet pack and went back to heaven, the people just went insane over that silly temple while God sat in his arm chair, snickering.
Tiff, when did james ever say that Hitler was a *moral* person?
He didn't say it directly, but he did say that it would be easier to make a case for Hitler than for God. From post 174. "Its easier to make a case for hitler being a moral person than god." I realise this doesn't constitute saying that Hitler was moral, but I did find it interesting.
It means that I believe in Hitler meaning he was real. I think that's what the post meant.
No, it simply meant that it is probably easier to make a case for hitler having moral character than god having the same. that's all, nothing else was implied. I did not say, and do not believe that hitler was moral.
Actually I have engaged in casual sex, and everything leading up to it. I rather enjoyed it, too. That doesn't make it a good thing. Some people enjoy a punch in the face, too. Very silly comparrison, I know. I think the casual way some people treat sexuality is bad, but that does not (I repeat, does NOT!) mean I think people who do that are evil. I can separate people from their actions, unless said people are just out to hurt others. And I'd very much like to think none of us here are like that.
I definately find Cody's story blasphimous, but it was! also pretty funny.
Stormwing, Christianity isn't for everyone. I can absolutely understand how a lot of the things in the scriptures can turn us away from it. It's one of the other reasons I embraced the LDS faith. It cleared up and clarified a lot "for me". That doesn't mean it would for you of course, and I'm not suggesting you conver to it, though I'm sure some may take my words as such. I won't deny that I believe my church to be the fullness of the true gospel. But we are also judged on how we live our lives. And I think it's better to be a great agnaustic (or atheist) than a terrible Christian.
why doesn't enjoying casual sex make it a good thing, in your eyes, BG? that makes absolutely no sense.
you enjoyed it, so what's the issue? deep down, are you ashamed, perhaps? I just don't get it.
also, your example of someone liking being punshed in the face is not only extreme, but you can't, by any means, compare the two.
I can answer that question. So many people have been brought up in a puratanical way and are "afraid" of sex. Note that afraid is in quotes so I don't want any backlash from that. See, it's this whole fear of bodies. Kind of strange but there you go.
I think that's pretty accurate.
It makes no sense but guess what it's tied to? Religion!
I know. quite a shame, really.
I don't see casual sex, with the exception of one night stands, to be a problem. I had a small handful of friends with benefits before starting my first relationship, and don't regret it. But I always had guidelines. If we weren't seeing each other exclusively, condoms were always used to avoid stds/stis etc. Since my partners also believed in that as an automatic rule, the chances of that happening were quite slim, but safety always came first. When we were exclusive, I used hormonal contraception to avoid pregnancy. I also never went with anyone who was attached, married, etc. and never said "I love you" unless I absolutely meant it. We made it clear that we were fwbs and not in a relationship. Even though I never fully exploited it, since I only saw one man at a time, I liked the freedom of being able to see whom I wanted without any strings attached.
Now that I've had a boyfriend for over five years, it's different, and naturally, we're monogamous. There's also something wonderful about having that special person in your life, the one who's not a brother, or a parent, or a friend, but a lover and a partner. It's about far more than sex and friendship with us, and I can tell in the little things he does for me, even how he puts his hand on my head when passing, caresses my face or arm when we're just relaxing, or says things to make me laugh when I'm feeling down. Still, each type of experience has taught me something.
The one thing I can't understand at all is people who refuse to have sex before marriage. Certainly, love does not require sex. But I would think it makes far more sense to know what you're getting into before you make such a life-changing commitment. I take the idea of marriage very seriously, as I consider it to be a sacred bonding and pledge to one another. I don't believe that divorce should be taken lightly. It should always be a last resort, except in the case of abuse, where it should be done as quickly as possible.
Oh of course you have guidelines. We all do. Tiff, what religion were you raised with and why did you decide not to follow it?
My family is Roman Catholic, but in name only. We never went to church etc. The closest I came was watching things like jesus of Nazarith and The Ten Commandments on television, and learning The Lord's Prayer. When I turned eight, Mom wanted me to receive my first communion. Keep in mind that I live in a suburb of New Jersey, about 20 minutes from New York City, not in the middle of nowhere. We called the local church, and when the nun heard that I was blind, she actually said "oh no! We have 450 students! We can't be worried about a blind one!" That's pretty much as she said it, though of course, my memories from that time are a bit faded. But Mom was mortified. She said, "Excuse me? I was born in Italy! I'm a Roman Catholic! Does God know about this?" The other churches said "we'll call you back" and never did. I did get my Communion, but out of town.
After that, Mom told me that I didn't have to follow her religion, since they rejected me. I was not brought up with guilt, shame, the idea of sin, etc. I was always encouraged to be myself, to speak my mind, and to follow my heart. Until I became a Hellenic Polytheist, therefore, I just believed that there was some kind of higher power out there, but I couldn't name it. I also had, and still have, an extremely deep belief in the spiritual realm, having had experiences with spirits myself and also having listened to stories from Mom and Grandma about their own. My interest in parapsychology further enhanced this belief.
As for why I decided not to follow Catholicism, I never really thought about it, until college. I was the one who chose to go to a Jesuit one, due to their love of education. It was only after taking two theology classes that i realised how much I disagreed with the teachings of The church. Most either left me questioning things or backing up and thinking "this doesn't make sense."
So the church rejected you? That's just discusting.
You should have seen the Jesuit priests when I told them what happened! Wow were they angry! I don't remember why I brought it up, but it wasn't to offend or insult them, and they certainly didn't take it that way. They said Mom should have called the arch diasys!
I had a similar experience with some fundamentalists on a few occasions throughout life.
Here is my answer to the question "How can they do that?" which even other Christians have put forth as a response. My answer is, they can, because once they claim God said it, or that it's a faith issue, Western society gives them a free pass. They can do it because we, the population, prop them up with numerous entitlements so much so that if they don't get everything they want the way they want it, they cry persecuted. So what's a solitary blind bat instance in comparison with having to pay for parking like the rest of us, account for where money is coming and going like the rest of us, and the list goes onward and usually downward.
We are the problem, I think, just like supporting any intergenerational entitlement wellfare mentality, because we treat faiths like some extremely delicate retarded child who must be allowed to run around and do whatever it wants wherever it wants.
With a few exceptions, most people, myself included, nod politely at the native savages who claim God said this or that and walk past them. And why? Do we really think they're superior somehow? No: it's because we think they're helpless, weak, savage, uncivilized types in need of socialized support that not even a crazed Marxist could come up with. That is why. If they were strong, if their faith were strong, they would seek no entitlements, would never cry over persecution, and would stand tall like the heroic being they would like you to believe they are. I don't know if we'll ever challenge them, as a society. Sure, there are the Codys out there who apparently believe these people are more capable than the rest of us give them credit for. Sort of the way someone may challenge a blind person who has been coddled their whole life. Irony is, I had the benefits of a wit and grit existence, no coddling on account of being blind, but when it comes to religions I'm as bad as anyone else at propping them up artificially. It comes down to the fact that deep down we think they're not sustainable on their own. If they were, they wouldn't be crying and legislating, they'd be innovating and contributing. They wouldn't be telling stories and testimonials, they'd be building new infrastructures and paying their own way like the rest of us.
If they aren't weak, if they aren't incapable, they should laud and bless Cody and Chelsea, and despise the rest of us who, as the NFB would put it, "kill them with kindness." But, it seems, the rest of us are probably right: they're just not really sustainable and like the retarded, must be propped up by the rest of us, simply because the rest of us are civilized. Sure, we have to bat them around some to keep them out of science curricula and the like, but any population that is intergenerationally wellfare-supported needs to be batted around some to keep them out of interfering with the rest of us.
Think hard: we have cute names for it, calling it respect for faiths and all, but what we really mean is they're not sustainable. Their respect for which we provide them is not the merits-based "earning of stripes" respect many of us live for. It's the respect of the entitled, those who say the proverbial gov'ment is supposed to protect this and give that.
They can't do like the rest of us. If they really think they're tough, they should drop all vestiges of entitlements like many from other groups have done, stand up, and be counted on a merits-based approach: no more, no less. Live by wit and grit, which ultimately, is all any of us really has.
very well said, leo. I of course new the answer; I just posted the question to see if any of them would admit it. I should've known better, though.
Leo, I guess that is a major problem I have with the churches. Not only do they continue to shovel out this horse shit, but they actually contribute nothing. Then they kick and scream about how less and less people are feeding into it.
Don't the projects do this? Only instead of calling it wellfare, general assistance, relief, or other such things, we call it respect for faiths and a host of other things. How else can we account for a dominant relgion such as Christianity in the U.S. quite openly begging for additional rights handouts all the time.
I heard a fundamentalist mom bleat piteously about how her child had to hear about evolution, and how she by definition had to hear about evolution. You'd think she was a lost kitten in the rain genetically crossed with a pterodactyl by how she acted. My only response? While you cry and complain because you have to hear about something you don't like in school, I carried a backpack of books weighing 15 pounds, a typewriter and other accessories around in school. The difference between you and I is that I did not cry: I stood up to the situation like a human being.
But we think they're incapable, unlike those who surrounded me growing up, and so we continue to pat their little heads and say, "Oh, poor babies, that's ok, you don't like that? Okay, we'll let you live in a bubble." If they really are capable human beings, they should be royally insulted by such coddling. That's a big if, however. My betting money is on the negative.
This is what I think and this will most certainly get me in hot water. One rite we should at least put under review is the freedom of religion thing. People take it to far and fundamentalists, nutjobs, and zelits run the streets. Most people actually treat such folks as kids on the playground. They ooo and ah and talk about how cute it is.
wow! as always, well said Leo! I think you're exactly right and that's why fewer and fewer people are bothering with religion and church these days. I actually read an article about this a little while ago; it talked about how weekly church was statistically down from any previous generation and that more and more people identify themselves as atheists or agnaustics.
I agree that religions shouldn't get special privelages and help from the government. I don't know how it's done in America, but in Greece, The church is not only exempt from paying taxes, but actually receives money from the government! Granted, I do believe in funding for the restoration and excavation of ancient sites, but that benefits everyone. For the record, I don't believe in propping up the retarded either. There is a difference between respecting faiths and giving them special rights. I also think there's a difference between giving money to churches and helping the needy. They are not one in the same.
To clarify, when I said "I don't believe in propping up the retarded", I meant the severely disabled, not those who can do work. Even if it'g something small, I see no reason why they can't get government help. After all, there are programs to employ the blind and the deaf, so why not them, especially if they can't find work in a mainstream setting.
Tax the churches already!
No Margurp, I'm afraid, at least in my case, that you're dead wrong about the sex thing. I'm not in the least afraid of sex, bodies, or my own performance for that matter. I merely think too many people don't take sex and the possible consequences of it as seriously as they need to. In short, not everyone is as cautious as all of you seem to be. There's a ton of pregnancy, disease, and miscommunication going on. Sure it's great if you and your partner communicate perfectly, know what you want, what you don't and that if it's just casual, none of you wil get attached. Plus yes, I do think it's special, and something not to be taken lightly. You're essentially sharing the most intimate part of yourself with someone. But I'm going to end there. These are my views, and not commonly expressed here. That's okay. I'm not condemning any of you. So let's drop this little tangent. I will say right now that yes, I do know that not all marriages work, and that there's statistics to prove blah blah blah blah. That's a whole other can of worms.
Tiff, I must say it's nice to read your post about this topic. I do believe in waiting till marriage before having sex, but that said, I definately think your points are very valid too. I myself never did wait, and admitedly I'm torn on that one a bit.
I'm very disturbed as well by your treatment at the hands of the church, Tiff. I don't think that's the same thing as the entire church rejecting you, but that person who did definately has a backwards view of things. As an aside, I too am very interested in parapsychology. Even if it turns out everything I believe in is completely fictional, I've witnessed far too much to turn my back on the idea that there's a lot more to us and the universe than just us, right here, right now.
Leo, I thought your post was very interesting. On many aspects I highly agree. I think when any church becomes any sort of a business, it can have a very negative influence on itself, and many things it touches. One of the greatest dangers right now is the sheer staggering number of differing beliefs all stemming from the same source. Add how some churches were built up specifically because someone didn't like something about Christianity (and yes, I see the irony in what I'm saying here, given my own church's creation) and you can pretty much kiss any spiritual continuity goodbye. I think therefore that there is a big difference between a church, and the religion that it calls its own. That's one of the reasons I don't agree with making a living off your "faith"; it takes away from the essence of that faith. When money becomes central, corruption is sure to follow. (And no that does not mean I think money is evil.)
I also think there's a lot of danger when it comes to "fundimentalist groups." It seems like wherever you hear the term, a whole host of terrible things are sure to follow.
I have to wonder. Why do people hate being fundamentalist? Why does that word scare us?
If you are an athlete, you beg to be good at the fundamentals. It should probably worry you if you are afraid of just the fundamentals of your religion. If admitting that you cling to the basics or fundamentals of your religion is a bad thing, there's probably a bit of a problem in the works somewhere. Just me being philosophical for a sec, thoughts?
Cody, I think people have misconceptions that being a fundamentalist is taking things too far, or even that it in itself is just this horrible thing that exists.
said fear is similar, in a way, to BG, for instance, saying, "oh, but don't compare me to other christians, cause I'm not them"!
he's afraid of what that intales, and wants no part of it, which is similar to the fundamentalist attitude most people have of wanting to stay as far away from it as possible cause it's no good.
People fear that fundamentalists are dangerous. They are seen as a threat somehow. Personally I don't see how it is less dangerous then beeing a "basic believer." And bg, when I spoke of fear of sex, I wasn't implying that you have this. I was meerly pointing out that many people do.
Can fundamentalists be separated from Christian extremists, or are they one in the same? Some people tend to refer to the lunatic fringe of Christianity as fundies, for good or ill. And, if you guys want a taste of this lunatic fringe in all its flavors, go on over to www.fstdt.com and go to the FSTDT section. That stands for "Fundies Say the Darnedest Things."
They certainly do. I found a website once with articles telling christians to avoid all music with drums in it, because drums are evil and conjure up demons. Oh and women are not to wear jeans. Jeans are men's clothes only!
Wow men's clothes only? Now that's funny. lol.
Cody, unlike your athletic example, or the training we get in the Coast Guard, fundamentalists aren't just about the basics. What many people, and security structures, have concerns about is that these fundamentals become justification foor any number of actions. You've said time and again you've never done anything "in the name of atheism." You've never done anything, so small as simple civil disobedience, in the name of atheism. In part because atheism isn't an entity, and in part it's a mental assent to something rather than a fervor. But you can take normal decent civilized people and bring out the savage by simply appealing to their belief system strongly enough that you can get them to defy logic, reason, the law, the rights of others.
This is how so-called animal liberation fundamentalists will kill pets in order to prove a point about animal slavery, or pro-life extremists will bomb an abortion clinic killing numerous mothers, doctors, unborn, only to prove a point about their beliefs. Bush said it correctly when he said that you cannot reason with terrorists. Ironically, he had quite a number of fundamentalist Christian supporters here in the U.S. who probably don't realize his, and their, words serve to condemn their actions and prove the rest of us to be fools to try to talk any bit of sense into them. I've been around some pretty rabid fundamentalists, just as I have been around some very addicted crack cocaine users.
And just as you or I who enjoy our beers would not want to be compared to the crack cocaine user, there are lots of people who don't wish to be connected to these rabid extremists either. One doesn't always lead to the other, and in most cases it can't. Part of the crack high for these people is their exclusivity. They're the minority, at least in their own minds. Excluding vast numbers of people is part of the game for them. You see these punk kids blinging around with "Who's the real gangster?" and you see these punk fundamentalists I don't know, hallelujahing? around with who's the real member of their group. Far too many comparisons to count.
Oh and using the animal rights example: lots of normal sane people support animal wellfare, and I even know a few who would say they're more on the rights side of the issue than simple wellfare. However, since they lack the fervor, and understand there's more to life than just their ideology, they're not out destroying businesses and killing people's pets as are certain extreme groups like PETA.
Hoping that makes for a bit of sense.
It does Leo. Honestly my question was more rhetorical than anything else.
Though, historically speaking, the word fundamentalists has been twisted to mean extremists nowadays. When the term was coined, I believe in the early 1900's if my memory serves, it meant literally the followers of the fundamentals.
Ah but so much gets twisted as time passes.
I've never heard of animal rights groups going and killing animals. That's beyond sickening! I'd say torture for them, at the least!
I wouldn't torture them because I don't believe they really do that. I think it is just hipe.
I would only do so if it could be proven that they do this. Accusations without proof are worthless.
Any time a person believes they're above the law because of their devotion to an idea, there's just something wrong there in my opinion, and I don't care what somebody's pet cause is. The minute you use your fanaticism to justify murder or destruction of property, that's it.
Let's see. How to respond to this one.
As you all realize, if you have faith in a particular religion, it is because what you, as a person, believes. It is not what someone puts in your mind, thoughts, or actions. Am I going to disagree that Christian's shove their religious views upon most people,no, I won't. Being a Christian myself, and attending a Christian school, I have had people who have attempted to shove religious views down my throat.
Instead of practicing this, Christians should try to win someone over to Christ, and if it doesn't work, let it rest. In my mind, it is up to you, and to you only, how you would like to express your religious views. If you don't believe in anything and are atheist, that is good for you. America needs to learn more religious tolerance.
I feel that there are so many splits in our nation; why make religion this way, as well? I will say that I believe in Christ, but do I never sin? That's an understatement. Everyone does, but I'm not here to tell you to accept Christianity today.
So, very valid points, guys.
Nathan.
Nathan, as children, we are told about a higher power. Most, if not all of us, have had fear put into us and were told to be good because there's an afterlife and god is watching. This sort of manipulation makes me sick.
Leo, Godzilla, great posts.:) And I fully agree with your last one too, Margurp.
And there's no stopping it.