mm201 wrote:

I'll just say it. Homophobes are idiots.

You're overgeneralizing, for one thing. For another, hold your tongue; it's not something I can help. It's well within my ability to not oppress, to support, and to treat LGBTs as I would any other human being, but I can't control the tiny ulcer growing in my stomach when they talk to me about their sexual tendencies.

mm201 wrote:

Religion doesn't start wars, people do, usually fighting over economic control of some region.

Well I wish it was only that one..there's far,far more to that than simple "economic control".

Provide examples.

The Middle East is about economic control, despite what they say.

Also,basically everything comes down to what Hoverlegs mentioned in a sarcastic manner,and no matter what we do that'll always stay the same..

Hoverlegs wrote:

my religon > your religion

Nope. Anyone that even bothers studying other religions can tell that each one has some truth to it. And if anyone ever asked why they believe what they do, they'd know that every religion is just about as valid as the next, the only difference being what you place your faith on.

C.S. Lewis alluded in Abolition of Man to something called the "Tao" (pronounced dao) or "The Way." He asserted that several cultures around the world, developed similar ethical values despite being mostly isolated from each other in time and space. All of these cultures, Chinese, Greek, Judaic, Celtic, and so on, managed to somewhat agree on something. " Do to others as you would have them do to you" is a very common one. Most, if not all religions have moral/ethical fundamentals such as these.

Of course, some religions have less arguments backing them than others, though at that point it'd be breaking into sects more than religions in the strict sense of the word. For example, the Orthodox Church has less arguments against it compared to the Catholic Church. Still, it mostly comes down to faith, which has to work on the assumption that "my religion = your religion", otherwise there'd be no doubt and therefore no faith. It was one of G.K. Chesterton's main points and personifies it in The Ball and the Cross; your belief is a big leap of faith when it comes down to it, whether you believe there's something out there or not.

Aeidxst wrote:

Religion was created with a good cause like preventing rape, murder, theft etc. I think. It was a positive idealistic system created to inspire harmlesss manners.

That's what I think a "good" believer should do with their respective religion too. But guess what? I've brought up that point when challenged by religious people on many occasions, but their answers are always along the line of "if you believe in the wrong god, then it is pointless no matter how many good deeds you do."

*gasp*

I'm not talking about some thieves/swindlers who cheats people everyday. Most of these hardcore religious zealots are ordinary people, some even have jobs in engineering and field of science (my colleagues for example). Here in Australia. Not some middle-age country. It scares me when I cross a bridge or get on an airplane thinking that it could be designed by one of these people.

all voices and no ears, this thread

Brian OA wrote:

mm201 wrote:

Religion doesn't start wars, people do, usually fighting over economic control of some region.

Well I wish it was only that one..there's far,far more to that than simple "economic control".

Brian OA wrote:

Provide examples.

The Middle East is about economic control, despite what they say.

To provide examples?
I basically live in a place that could be my example for you...Balkan,all major military powers pull the strings here.You cant just blindly tell me that it's all about economic control here.It dates back to the Austro-Hungarian empire, and now that the empire is no more,Germany,Britain,U.S.A. and Russia took that place.They are basically playing a big game of chess here.You can't tell me that all the major powers are giving their best to control this peninsula just because of its economic importance,because there is nothing here to prove that point.From that point of view it's not profitable at all.I myself don't know the true reason(only the ones who pull the strings do) why this patch of land they call "Balkans" is cursed,aside from the strategic position in Europe,but it clearly isn't because of its "economic importance".This is basically the simplest example I could've given to you,yet we can't discuss this further because we're just gonna go in circles here...the only thing I want to add is that religion is basically a mere tool that certain people who rule the world use to control the masses with relative ease.It's in the nature of a creature to hate or fear somebody or something just because it can't understand it,and since most of Earth's population consists of intellectually crippled people,you can only expect religion to be used to control them in more ways than just the economic one.

Ephemeral wrote:

long words

Honestly, I think that you can't say Christianity isn't homophobic. If you only believe the "core beliefs" of the Bible, then that means you're just cherry-picking the parts that make sense, which to me just seems ridiculous. IMO, if you're a "Christian", you should believe all of the Bible since you believe is "God's word". If you don't think it's "God's word", then why do you trust the New Testament?



However, if you have your own beliefs like "I believe there is a deity/deities that created the Universe", then fair enough. As long as religions don't interfere with progress in science, human rights, and anything else, then they're fine.

Oinari-sama wrote:

but their answers are always along the line of "if you believe in the wrong god, then it is pointless no matter how many good deeds you do."

You've been talking to the wrong people then. Let me be the first Catholic to tell you that your good deeds matter more than what you believe.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Honestly, I think that you can't say Christianity isn't homophobic. If you only believe the "core beliefs" of the Bible, then that means you're just cherry-picking the parts that make sense, which to me just seems ridiculous. IMO, if you're a "Christian", you should believe all of the Bible since you believe is "God's word". If you don't think it's "God's word", then why do you trust the New Testament?

This is a very awkward debate that inevitably centers around Leviticus 18. Most Christian denominations do not consider it binding.
Wikipedia comes to the rescue, namely a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, in explaining why this is not cherry picking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... n_Catholic

.

.

This topic...spreads like a cancer...

.

what the

This thread.

Apex wrote:

It's useless for a Christian(I, that is.) to talk to an Atheist.

it's useless for you to have an attitude like that. i don't care what a person worships or believe, they are people regardless and should be treated with the same respect and decorum as everybody else.

I was a Christian, but my extremist surroundings in high school made me lose faith.

Mr Color wrote:

I was a Christian, but my extremist surroundings in high school made me lose faith.

#1 cause of it, and for good reason. extremism twists the Christian ethos into something inexorably foreign and exclusive to what it actually is.. it's actually really terrifying.

Let's all give up our religions and join the one and true Church of Euthanasia
No but really,I think that there is nothing more to discuss about...we're starting to go in circles now.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Honestly, I think that you can't say Christianity isn't homophobic. If you only believe the "core beliefs" of the Bible, then that means you're just cherry-picking the parts that make sense, which to me just seems ridiculous. IMO, if you're a "Christian", you should believe all of the Bible since you believe is "God's word". If you don't think it's "God's word", then why do you trust the New Testament?

This is a very poorly thought out statement. First off, there is a reason the bible is written by four people and then some. The bible isn't a sort of etiquette guide to heaven, it's a series of stories about a saint who, in comparison to other people, didn't treat everyone like shit, and the book was written with the idea of passing it on, so more people would live like this. It is much more comparable to the Torah than the Qur'an. Even today rabbis AND priests interpret the bible personally, and tell people the SENTIMENT behind the words. Nobody wrote that one womb passage thinking "so don't go committing abortion in a few thousand years, mkay?"

mm201 wrote:

Wikipedia comes to the rescue, namely a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, in explaining why this is not cherry picking:

WATCH OUT with religious beliefs of Aquinas. He was the biggest eclectic up to then in religion and philosophy, comparing the bible and Aristotle as if they were on the same level, and picking out parts for himself to follow from either. He himself got quite a bit of slag writing the Summa Theologica exactly because it wasn't much in line with religion up to then.

This is the second worst thread after the conspiracy thread I've ever seen

mm201 wrote:

This is a very awkward debate that inevitably centers around Leviticus 18. Most Christian denominations do not consider it binding.
Wikipedia comes to the rescue, namely a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, in explaining why this is not cherry picking:

SPOILER

Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature;[9] ceremonial precepts, which deal with forms of worshipping God and ritual cleanness; and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21[10]) came into existence only with the Law of Moses,[11] and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ".[12] Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind,[13] and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin.[14]
[...]
Unlike the ceremonial and judicial precepts, moral commands continue to bind, and are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_ ... n_Catholic

Ah, that is a good argument indeed. Fair enough, then. Also, you can't deny that Christian morals are good, since they're just the same moral foundations that most religions/society has. It's debatable that they actually matter since it's common sense not to do things like that regardless of any belief, but eh- it's still good to have it as an influence on some people if they'll listen to nothing else.

Wojjan wrote:

This is a very poorly thought out statement. First off, there is a reason the bible is written by four people and then some. The bible isn't a sort of etiquette guide to heaven, it's a series of stories about a saint who, in comparison to other people, didn't treat everyone like shit, and the book was written with the idea of passing it on, so more people would live like this. It is much more comparable to the Torah than the Qur'an. Even today rabbis AND priests interpret the bible personally, and tell people the SENTIMENT behind the words. Nobody wrote that one womb passage thinking "so don't go committing abortion in a few thousand years, mkay?"

My argument was based around taking the Bible as the direct word of the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God. My issue with this view is that because God himself didn't write the Bible, the words could've easily been changed by the multiple writers to fit whatever agenda they have. That's more of a personal reason not to be Christian than anything, though. Thankfully the idea of separating the Bible's ideas solves the issue by meaning that not all of it has to be permanent. While Aquinas may not be the best source of information, that idea works perfectly well, I think.

kriers wrote:

This is the second worst thread after the conspiracy thread I've ever seen

Well clearly, since people are actually having conversations.

Jesus Christ how horrifying.

IppE wrote:

kriers wrote:

This is the second worst thread after the conspiracy thread I've ever seen

Well clearly, since people are actually having conversations.

Jesus Christ how horrifying.

What are you implying? Can't I tell the world how deluded my views on threads are?

.

buh buh

in many cases, religion compromises human happiness and subverts reality to uphold some arbitrary moral code which has no logical basis. Instead of a dialectic existing between reality and observing what's good for people and society and moral ideas, everything is very one-sided; we venture into the realm of the hypothetical immediately and apply this idea to society, whether or not it's actually a viable one. Even when people do decide to draw from reality, they come up with things like natural law, which only serves to more-or-less cripple the desires of certain individuals - referring to homosexuality again, an act which actually has no effect on the 60 year old clergyman who is prohibiting it, but for some reason is under his jurisdiction anyway - on the basis of some naturalistic fallacy that says just because something is, it ought.

there is no reason to deny the claim that we might have a sensus divinitatis (Calvin) and therefore that we need some religious opiate for whatever reason... to provide us some driftwood to cling to in hard times, or to give us some framework for life in general... but when that framework starts impeding the happiness of individuals who are entirely unconnected to us and have done nothing to deserve this breach of their rights, i think religion has gone too far. But then again, anything that brings individuals together into groups leads to a divide in society and hence sets the pedestal for discrimination. I'm not going to open discussion on the subject of human nature, but i think that might have something to do with it.

in short, i think that there is no reason to abolish religion altogether, but in an ideal world - at least for me - people would uphold religion on an individual basis, and not subvert the beliefs of others even though their opinion on the subject is of more-or-less equal value. This is my idea of religious freedom. How can it be done? I don't know, to be honest. As long as tradition remains, people will subconsciously adopt the beliefs of their heritage and remain close-minded to other approaches... even here though, I can't generalize. I was raised in a catholic household in a country that holds religion and superstition extremely close to heart, but I'd like to see myself as at least a bit more liberal, so it isn't that people can't become aware and change... ugh it's a hard question

/my rant i havent actually read the thread so sorry is something has been said already

.

tyrael6192 wrote:

i havent actually read the thread so sorry is something has been said already

READ THE THREAD. A discussion consists of more listening than talking, especially in a public forum.

.

Hey, Apex.

Stop speaking.

.

No. You're digging your own grave even more.

Wojjan wrote:

tyrael6192 wrote:

i havent actually read the thread so sorry is something has been said already

READ THE THREAD. A discussion consists of more listening than talking, especially in a public forum.

I'm not seeking to dispute the opinion of anyone else here, i just wanted to throw my cards on the table.

Apex wrote:

Well, one thing good is that there are no Christian extremists here, or jesus1412's or Clawsmash's accounts would be f-cked up. They're actually homosexual.

How do you know about my sexuality... I never told anyone...

.

the avatar is a girl x boy

.

Apex wrote:

jesus1412 wrote:

How do you know about my sexuality... I never told anyone...

Your avatar gives it away.

OH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT HOLY SHIT I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE.

I'm 100% serious, I didn't actually notice I was publicly expressing my sexuality :c.

this actually kind of belongs in general discussion because the topic has diverged from being lol ot shit to being somewhat interesting.. i just don't want it to get shit up by POST WHAT YOU HAD FOR DINNER LAST NIGHT pubbies

mathexpert9981 wrote:

>sasha grey

hell ain't that bad

Pizza.

Apex wrote:

There were two friends who were very close.(Imagine Apex and ME9981 as those two friends.)One spends his free time in markets and cities to learn, while the other one spends his freetime in his room reading and thinking to learn. Once when they were reading together, there were a festival, and the floats passed where they were reading. The former went to see what was going on, but before he could, the latter cut the straw mat(kind of function likes a sofa, but lighter and cheaper) they sat in to half, and said :"We are people of diferrent interests, therefore, we shouldn't be friends anymore." Therefore, different people with great different interests or thoughts should be friends.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Firstly, it seems the your last two lines contradict each other. Are you using the tale as a bad example of how friendship should work? Either way, it seems you two are no longer friends since you now refuse to talk to him. There's nothing wrong with a Christian talking to an Atheist. Religion does not define a person.

That said, I've always thought that religion was a way to explain the unexplainable. Two thousand years ago nobody had any idea how the Earth was created, or what our solar system really looked like. It was convenient to say an entity far greater than mankind did such a task. This does not dismiss the idea that there is a God ruling over the universe though. Maybe there is, it cannot be proved of disproved. Of course, there are things that cannot be explained even when you believe there is a God that has created everything, such as the "how was God created" argument.

Whether you believe in science, religion, or both, there are still going to be questions you cannot answer. I agree with tyrael6192, religion should be practiced however an individual wants, as long as it does not encroach on those who do not wish it to.

One thing I am surprised to have not seen much discussion of in this thread is the morality of pushing religion on children. Most people would say institutions like the Westboro Baptist Church should not be pushing such hateful things upon their youth. Does the same go for the less extremist branches of different religions? Sure, they aren't doing such awful things, but how can it be morally acceptable to push such beliefs on a child who does not understand there are many different ways to look at their world? Even though they can't analyze the depth of religion, if you told a kid you would split a pack of cookies with him and then took all but one for yourself, he would be upset. Is it fair to withhold information about other religions and beliefs or to dismiss them as works of fiction? If there were no cookies in the first place then this problem would never arise.

Ephemeral wrote:

this actually kind of belongs in general discussion because the topic has diverged from being lol ot shit to being somewhat interesting.. i just don't want it to get shit up by POST WHAT YOU HAD FOR DINNER LAST NIGHT pubbies

I'm impressed. We're not moving a thread to GD because OT actually provides better discussion.

Kinda makes you think doesn't it

Mr Color wrote:

Hey, Apex.

Stop speaking.

Pretty much what I thought while reading all those comments...lol

.

You're obviously doing it the wrong way.

Mr Color wrote:

I'm impressed. We're not moving a thread to GD because OT actually provides better discussion.

Kinda makes you think doesn't it

that in itself is a leap of faith. Eph never said OT provides better discussion. He said that, in GenD, the thread would get drowned out, suffocated, forgotten because of all the pointless threads in that board.

this is institutional racism
i blame the schools

Brian OA wrote:

my religion = your religion and words

So basically what you're saying is

Jesus = Allah = Haruhi = Kira Yamato

If every religion is just as valid as the next, only a single religion should exist and we'll all go to heaven. Of course it's better that way but we just can't have nice things, can we?

Why do you pledge to put faith in a certain religion instead of an other certain religion? Even if other religions might have questionable amount of truths in them, everything that came from your Bible, Quran or whatever should never be doubted or questioned, since that predicament could be deemed as blasphemy. Their ideals are probably not far from each other and they probably share the same goal, but the way they execute their actions to achieve it are different. And that matters a lot. Comparing religions is okay, but if you start doubting your own, you better think long and hard about what you're going to do next. If you truly have faith in your religion, you should think of it as the greatest, and any thoughts of believing in an other religion should be thrown away. Otherwise just join the one you think is greater or quit religion and rely on SCIENCE

yes, religion sounds really unreasonable

ALSO I DON'T INTO RELIGION I HAVE NO NAMES OF PEOPLE TO DROP

and since homophobia is mentioned in this thread, I don't mind gay people but I have to admit that I think Clawsmash is way too open about his sexuality in his posts, and he should tone his gayness down alot little

tyrael6192 wrote:

I'm not seeking to dispute the opinion of anyone else here, i just wanted to throw my cards on the table.

That's not how a discussion works. We don't want a pile of cards, we want a deck.

Wojjan wrote:

tyrael6192 wrote:

I'm not seeking to dispute the opinion of anyone else here, i just wanted to throw my cards on the table.

That's not how a discussion works. We don't want a pile of cards, we want a deck.

The thing is,we can't possibly form a deck from this pile of cards...or should I say this mess...

You can still try

Hoverlegs wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

my religion = your religion and words

So basically what you're saying is

Jesus = Allah = Haruhi = Kira Yamato

If every religion is just as valid as the next, only a single religion should exist and we'll all go to heaven. Of course it's better that way but we just can't have nice things, can we?

A single religion would be impossible, given how almost every one is based on some form of divine intervention, such as Christ's birth, death, and resurrection, or some prophet squatting in a cave and communicating with an angel (this would cross out Haruhi and Kira, since their origins are of a different nature). Most of these religions might have similar moral and ethical codes, but they would still disagree on whether there is a heaven at all, on what happens to your soul or whether you even have one, etc. You can't compromise two religions where one says evil is an equal force to good and another that says evil has no power in the face of good. Zoroastrianism and Christianity wouldn't mix in that case.

I believe you're judged bases on your consciousness, meaning you're not going to be condemned if you have nothing to feel guilt or shame for. Meaning any good Shintoist, atheist, or pagan has as much of a shot of getting in Heaven as a Christian would, assuming said Heaven exists.

There can only be one true religion, but our method of determining that is far too arbitrary to be making claims such as "my religion>your religion". I have my reasons for placing my faith in Christianity, but it's not like I have empirical evidence supporting it. I won't have it even if I were Hindu, Islamic, or Jewish.

Why do you pledge to put faith in a certain religion instead of an other certain religion? Even if other religions might have questionable amount of truths in them, everything that came from your Bible, Quran or whatever should never be doubted or questioned, since that predicament could be deemed as blasphemy. Their ideals are probably not far from each other and they probably share the same goal, but the way they execute their actions to achieve it are different. And that matters a lot. Comparing religions is okay, but if you start doubting your own, you better think long and hard about what you're going to do next. If you truly have faith in your religion, you should think of it as the greatest, and any thoughts of believing in an other religion should be thrown away. Otherwise just join the one you think is greater or quit religion and rely on SCIENCE

AND YET WE ALL DOUBT. Even Mother Theresa doubted, for Pete's sake. Even Christ doubted when he was suffering the greatest pain any man could bear. Yet we all remember them as saints or the alleged Son of God. Faith wavers and makes you doubt a lot assuming you're not shutting the rest of the world out.

It's not blasphemy to question a book of scripture, though; that's something entirely different.

Aurani wrote:

so many words

Well cripe, if you don't know why, then you might as well not say it at all. If they have a reason to contend for it, it has to be profitable in some way, be it through money or power. But if you're just going to throw an ambiguous, unclear example and then say "we can't discuss it because we'd go in circles (as if we don't do that with every topic under the sun)" then don't mention it at all; you're not proving any points with that and providing no grounds to argue with either.

the only thing I want to add is that religion is basically a mere tool that certain people who rule the world use to control the masses with relative ease.It's in the nature of a creature to hate or fear somebody or something just because it can't understand it,and since most of Earth's population consists of intellectually crippled people,you can only expect religion to be used to control them in more ways than just the economic one.

A completely baseless statement. To clarify, the tool to control the masses isn't religion, it's comfort and media. That's the whole point in Brave New World, if you've ever read it. Secondly, you're not being clear; how is being afraid of the unknown and being intellectually crippled somehow relate to being controlled by religion? Thirdly, you're implying that the majority of the population is intellectually crippled--somehow making them subject to being religious. As if ignorance means religion. Yet there are exorbitant amounts of religious intellectuals, famous or not, around the globe, throughout history, and in every book.

Brian OA wrote:

Even Christ doubted when he was suffering the greatest pain any man could bear

To be frank, Jesus got off really lightly. Crucifixion was a punishment for the pettier criminals, remember.

I wonder if more people would believe it if he had suffered the boats, or the brazen bull?

>Implying crucifixion is light.

Relatively speaking, sure. Nonetheless excruciatingly painful and would kill anyone regardless.

Ok since this got waaay out of hand I'm just gonna keep it short:
1) I would really like to have a debate with you,since I see that you're well informed and have a bright head unlike most people.The reason why I can't is because I can't find the proper words/way to express myself the way I would like to,so essentially I'm in a dead end here...sadly,since I'm really in the mood for a healthy debate.
2) There isn't only 1 tool to control the masses,there are many ways to deceive someone,mainstream religions being one of them.I just believe that there is no need for religious organisations at all,they serve no purpose other than dividing people,causing distrust etc.
3) My mind wanders in a dark forest,all hail our messiah gurodoll.

1) Look up Strunken White. It's short and will help immeasurably.

2) Religions don't deceive; you're implying it's a big lie. Unless we're talking about Scientology.

3) Stahp

Brian OA wrote:

1) Look up Strunken White. It's short and will help immeasurably.

Just checked,I think that will be well worth my time.

Brian OA wrote:

2) Religions don't deceive; you're implying it's a big lie. Unless we're talking about Scientology.

They don't?As far as I know there was more than 1 occasion where Popes/various other people changed something related with religion to make people "bow" to their will,for the sake of their personal profit(or power,which is related to profit-like you mentioned 2 posts before).I'm not saying that everything is wrong,I'm against organisations and not against the core-believing in something divine.

Brian OA wrote:

3) Stahp

Are you trying to oppress my religious beliefs? *pulls out a gun*

Hoverlegs wrote:

and since homophobia is mentioned in this thread, I don't mind gay people but I have to admit that I think Clawsmash is way too open about his sexuality in his posts, and he should tone his gayness down alot little

you would have to then make the counterargument that everyone else has to tone down the heterosexuality in their posts. You just called that girl "kawaii uguu cute =3="? KILL YOURSELF

the rest of the people arent talking about how they are heterosexual and making extremely heterosexual comments in 50% of their posts

Maybe he just wants attention...but that's his way of dealing with things...he still has the right to express himself however he wants,doesn't he?

im not against it, animask has been the same for ages and nobody seems to be bothered by it.

I never said you were,I'm still new here and clearly don't have the right to say anything against you...I was just saying that he shouldn't be the main point of the discussion,since everyone has their own opinion about a certain individual.

Wojjan wrote:

tyrael6192 wrote:

I'm not seeking to dispute the opinion of anyone else here, i just wanted to throw my cards on the table.

That's not how a discussion works. We don't want a pile of cards, we want a deck.

Wojjan you of all people should know that OT doesn't work like that
so in the spirit of things, i made a post semi-relevant to the title of the thread without relating it to any previously-made post... i'm not asking you to read it or draw anything from it :I

But OT should be better than that.

It should at least be one of those fancy chrome-plated trash cans that open when you get close to them.

You must be new here -_-

I'm really glad that this place devolved into Reddit.

Pokebis wrote:

I'm really glad that this place devolved into Reddit.

you can just go back into that box you came from if you're going to be like that mister

Ephemeral wrote:

good-ass points

lol, I was just asking for a post dissection with that weak argument. Nah, I totally agree with most of your points; if I were to impose my atheistic beliefs unto others it would be hypocritical of me, because I hate Christians (singling them out, because they're notorious for this but to other religions as well) that have that "holier than thou" mindset.

mathexpert9981 wrote:

I hate Christians (singling them out, because they're notorious for this but to other religions as well) that have that "holier than thou" mindset.

The way I see it, they can be holier than thou. I'm fine with being smarter than thou

Any Christian that'd be honest with themselves can't adopt that mindset without being hypocrites. Basically what Matthew 7:1 says: "You shall not judge, lest you be judged." Because some people deem it more important to call others out for their sins without dealing with their own problems first.

Brian OA wrote:

Any Christian that'd be honest with themselves can't adopt that mindset without being hypocrites. Basically what Matthew 7:1 says: "You shall not judge, lest you be judged." Because some people deem it more important to call others out for their sins without dealing with their own problems first.

nail, meet hammer.

that is the core of the "bible-basher" attitude that you commonly see in extremist Christians.

I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

i don't really know how to explain it properly, but a lot of religious extremism extends from the fact that people seem to feel the need to prosecute others in order to appear pious or whatever, hence when religion becomes intrusive and repulsive

Oh, I see.

No more discussions?And I just got my popcorn...

This thread isn't even popcorn-worthy

Kanye West wrote:

This thread isn't even popcorn-worthy

It started nice tho...but then it just went in a completely wrong direction,which is to be expected of such a delicate topic.

In any case, I had fun reading this thread. It was interesting seeing so many similar and different viewpoints.

Some interesting quotes regarding religion:

"In the 'bullshit department' a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman."
- George Carlin

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
- Richard Dawkins

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
- Benjamin Franklin

"It isn't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand"
- Mark Twain

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of “humility.” This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein

This thread got boring.

Well then it's probably time to post a George Carlin clip, huh?

Nah.

Funny as it is, it's not enough to keep the discussion going. It's like trying to argue against Nietszche's "Needle and Barbs" section in--ah God what was it... Twilight of the Gods. It's satire; arguing against jokes always end on a sour note. That said, if there's any particular point he made in the video you want me to address, I will.

Oh, here's something that annoys me about Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.

The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.

Brian OA wrote:

I believe you're judged bases on your consciousness, meaning you're not going to be condemned if you have nothing to feel guilt or shame for. Meaning any good Shintoist, atheist, or pagan has as much of a shot of getting in Heaven as a Christian would, assuming said Heaven exists.

This is an interesting statement, because consciousness doesn't differ from religion to religion, but from person to person. There are people out there who can do pretty terrible things, up to murder, and not lose any sleep over it. Would they be allowed into heaven? They don't feel guilt because they can justify it as eye for an eye or whatever, but what they did is still ethically wrong.

Didn't follow the discussion well but, I must say, there are tribes that expects you to kill your own father.

It's "wrong" to you and "norm" to them.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Oh, here's something that annoys me about Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.

The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.

Why not?I surely enjoy more looking at the magnificent structures that are churches and cathedrals than waste my money on,for example,helping the poor african children.... *sarcasm*

Aeidxst wrote:

Didn't follow the discussion well but, I must say, there are tribes that expects you to kill your own father.

It's "wrong" to you and "norm" to them.

Which is exactly why morality is entirely relative... the carthaginians believed in infanticide and shit, but that doesn't mean it's 'right'. Even the term 'right' is entirely relative to the circumstance and the social context. And this, my friends, is why asserting one religion over another is bullshit.

tyrael6192 wrote:

Which is exactly why morality is entirely relative... the carthaginians believed in infanticide and shit, but that doesn't mean it's 'right'. Even the term 'right' is entirely relative to the circumstance and the social context. And this, my friends, is why asserting one religion over another is bullshit.

It'd be good for people to basically invent their own religion, their own idea of what created the Universe (keeping science in mind). The issue with this is that it's asocial, there's no community aspect.

I wish I was religious, though. I agree with Buddhism's teachings a LOT, but it'd be wrong to call myself one since I'm completely atheist.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Oh, here's something that annoys me about Christianity, especially Roman Catholics.

The churches are just ridiculous. The protestants do it right, where it's a simple building to bring the community together. The Roman Catholics on the other hand... everything has to be gilded with stained-glass windows and gold and idols (!!) everywhere. It's a tremendous waste of money to "show people the glory of God" or whatever.
Surely it'd be better to actually help people with the money they spent on furnishing the churches like that.

Yeah, I agree. Though at this point it can't really be helped, and some of those cathedrals are beautiful, mind you. Then yet again if I had to make a list of everything that annoys about Roman Catholics, I'd have to put it in a book, not a forum post. And it's not like I'm exempt from some of that shit anyway. Regardless, it's not like those structures have stopped them from actually helping others.

Wojjan wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

I believe you're judged bases on your consciousness, meaning you're not going to be condemned if you have nothing to feel guilt or shame for. Meaning any good Shintoist, atheist, or pagan has as much of a shot of getting in Heaven as a Christian would, assuming said Heaven exists.

This is an interesting statement, because consciousness doesn't differ from religion to religion, but from person to person. There are people out there who can do pretty terrible things, up to murder, and not lose any sleep over it. Would they be allowed into heaven? They don't feel guilt because they can justify it as eye for an eye or whatever, but what they did is still ethically wrong.

Yeah good point, I forgot about that.

I doubt people are born insensitive to human suffering like that, enough to be able to kill, cheat, and steal without caring about it. That is to say, those people weren't always like that--they needed to condition themselves to be that way. I don't think we're born morally good, but we're not born morally evil either. I think we're born essentially good. A rapist, tyrant, and murderer is made, not born. They had to, at some point, drown out a voice saying "this is wrong" and eventually forgot about it as the years went by. Tempering yourself to ignore your good judgement doesn't clear you for Heaven.

Mmm, what if good judgement is developed through nurture and an acquired understanding of what society requires in order to function? In this case, it wasn't that their 'good judgement' was 'lost' or 'drowned out', but simply never acquired due to how they were raised or the experiences they did or did not undergo. If we play some sort of devil's advocate and attribute this to bad parenting, then is it truly even the fault of the person?

Assuming good judgement is acquired that way, yes. Only thing is that bad parenting would only take partial blame, not total blame as the person still has free will and it's not practically possible to adhere to one set of morals (or lack thereof) without it.

I find this debate to be more interesting than this thread.

And I can name thirty books more interesting than this thread.

Brian OA wrote:

And I can name thirty books more interesting than this thread.

Do it please D:

Twilight of the Idols, Ball and the Cross, Abolition of Man, Man against Mass Society, The Tunnel, The Grand Inquisitor, Therese Raquin, Brothers Karamazov, The Gulag Archipelago, Remembering, Miracles, The History of Rasselas, Shadow of the Wind, Mutual Aid; A Factor of Evolution, Gorgias, The Consolation of Philosophy, The Four Loves, The Quest of the Holy Grail, The Idylls of the King, and fuck that's all I got.

That's not thirty

1984, Brave New World, The Lights of September, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Canzionere, Troilus and Cressida/Criseyde, The Republic, Henry IV, De Regno, The Divine Comedy, and In Memoriam.

That's thirty now go away

Brave New World was kinda boring for the first 80% or so

still more interesting than this thread

awp wrote:

Brave New World was kinda boring for the first 80% or so

Still pretty interesting

I just realized the thread has been derailed.

silmarilen wrote:

still more interesting than this thread

I beg to differ, as the entertainment to time ratio is significantly lower.

BNW takes up a lot more time than this thread does

awp wrote:

silmarilen wrote:

still more interesting than this thread

I beg to differ, as the entertainment to time ratio is significantly lower.

BNW takes up a lot more time than this thread does

But BNW was actually interesting, especially for a book of its age. Conditioning, mass breeding, and drugs, man. Besides, I think it has more truth in it than 1984, although 1984 was right on the dot about what would happen to language more than BNW.