Religion What does religion bring that nothing else can bring ?

[strongvoicesforward]

The use of Old and New is practiced widely.

Trip...

And so are witticisms which you take offense to when targeted at your belief system.

I can clearly see how a group's, whose religion is cherished by them, could feel slighted by someone slapping the word "old" on their sacred book. What makes their book old? Merely sequence? What if someone came out with a 3rd version and instead of calling the now New Testement, the Not so Old Testement and then published millions of books with New on their cover and relegate your book as a chapter in theirs with the other title they have contrived? I don't think you or a lot of Xtians would look too favorable on that. Gee, Sabro, you just have trouble with a simple acronym like WOG and BWOG in this very small corner of the internet.

Besides, have the Jews been convinced to abandon their title of their book and call it "Old?" I don`t think so. Why don`t your kind offer them the respect by calling their book what they want it called, just as you want "Christianity", "The Word Of God" spelled out properly? You seem to be practicing some prejudice and intolerance that is disrespectful and callous to the religio culture and history of a very large group of people, but demanding respect for your group. Have you looked up the meaning of the word "hypocracy" lately?

 

[Maciamo]

Religion brings peace.

Religious intolerance brings conflict.

As far as I know, quite a few Christian sects, esp. Conservative and Fundemenatlist ones, are quite intolerant of other beliefs. Historically, Christianity has been one of the most intolerant religion ever, responsible for numerous bloody wars, massacres of the infidels, torture and execution of those who did not believe exactly what the church wanted, and sometimes eventhough they did.

Remember that most of the people who have chosen to follow ONE religion, and especially an exclusive religion (i.e. that does not recognise the validity or is imcompatibe with other religions) like Judaism, Christianity or Islam, cannot be tolerant by the very choice they made. Non-religious people, and especially universalists, may choose to take only "what is good" or what they like in each religion, without taking the intolerant elements of exclusivity (e.g. the Bible's second commandment "You shall have no other gods besides Me", or Jesus' preaching that there is only one real god and that anything that goes against what he says is against god's will).

Finally, I have never heard of any atheist organisation causing war on basis of their atheist beliefs. But history is full of wars caused by religion, or using religious faith as a tool for war or terrorism.

 

[No-name]

wit·ti·cism n. A witty remark.;a message whose ingenuity or verbal skill or incongruity has the power to evoke laughter [syn: wit, humor, humour, wittiness]

In order to be considered a witticism it has to be funny, it also should display some wit which imples ingenuity or verbal skills. Jabs designed to offend or that are merely offensive by nature that may be witty, probably don't count. Offending members of racial minorities, practicioners of religious faiths, and people with disabilities is only funny to some people.

Maciamo- RE: way back to #162- sorry, the thread got ahead of me. Abolitionists in the early to mid 1800's usually belong to Christian groups like the Quakers or like Jim Brown- were evangelicals. Social change in the South during the Civil Rights era was led by evangelicals like Dr. Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

 

[Maciamo]

In my experience my faith has brough peace. I have personally seen the effect in my life and in the lives of believers around me. Christianity is a faith of mercy, empathy, kindness and compassion. I have seen this first hand over almost three decades. It is not a superstition.

But your own experience does not necessarily reflect the greater reality of religion in world. First of all, I don't think you can talk for all people following your religion (Baptist Christianity, was it ?), but you can even less generalise by saying "Christianity" (which includes all kinds of beliefs, some very liberal, others very conservative and fundamentalist) does it or brings that... You can even less talk of "religion" as a whole. The word "religion" includes religions which I am sure you regard as myths (some animisms or polytheisms ?) or do not believe in.

If I went to a foreign nation and walked around judging their language, food and customs...denigrating their most sacred texts in the most disrespectful manner I could think of, refering to their dieties as fairy tale kings, and their belief system as silly superstitions it would be unacceptable...

Why not ? If the criticism is true and justified, or the person feel provocated. Anyhow, religions are borderless, and it is as normal to criticise any religion than to proselytise or claim the virtues of one.

you would be an ethnocentric bigot.

What can be more of an ethnocentric bigot than someone convinced that their faith is the only universal truth ?

 

[No-name]

But your own experience does not necessarily reflect the greater reality of religion in world. First of all, I don't think you can talk for all people following your religion (Baptist Christianity, was it ?), but you can even less generalise by saying "Christianity" (which includes all kinds of beliefs, some very liberal, others very conservative and fundamentalist) does it or brings that... You can even less talk of "religion" as a whole. The word "religion" includes religions which I am sure you regard as myths (some animisms or polytheisms ?) or do not believe in.

What can be more of an ethnocentric bigot than someone convinced that their faith is the only universal truth ?

The question was "What does religion bring that nothing else can bring?" I answered from a personal perspective. The question did not ask for imperical research. Religion has brought a richness to my life and a peace I cannot explain. Nothing else could bring these.

As to what could be more ethnocentric than (my description of the Ugly American)... how about someone that is convinced not only that everybody else's faith is wrong, but feels prompted (by what? God only knows.) to prove it.

 

[Maciamo]

I have moved the discussion about slavery and masturbation into a new thread, as it was not directly related to this thread's title.

 

[Maciamo]

As to what could be more ethnocentric than (my description of the Ugly American)... how about someone that is convinced not only that everybody else's faith is wrong, but feels prompted (by what? God only knows.) to prove it.

I think you are seriously confusing ethnocentric bigotry and rational open-minded, which are exactly the opposite. It is one thing to claim, without prove other than one's faith, that one's religion is the Truth or God-inspired, and quite another one to use rational arguments to demonstrate that it is not the case. Now if you think that using rational arguments, historical facts, sciences or logical analysis is ethnocentric bigotry, then I don't even know why you are discussing religion on a forum like this.

 

[No-name]

I don't think I am confused at all. Intolerance is inexcusable and bigotry wrong whether your target is a member of a race or a religion.

big ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I don't think the attacks on Christianity being made on this forum are rational or open minded- nor are they based on logical analysis or for rational reasons. Simply because some atheists hate Christianity does not give them a right to be intolerant. And simply because I am a Christian does not take away my right to defend my faith. Now I did not claim, nor did anyone else claim to be able to prove one's faith. The attack started from your quarter and I would throw it in with the preaching of those boorish prosletyzers you claim to hate.

 

[kumo]

I don't think I am confused at all. Intolerance is inexcusable and bigotry wrong whether your target is a member of a race or a religion.

So if I found a religion based on being "intolerant" to Christians and other races you will respect it? Or maybe do you agree that opinions should not have guaranteed protection against intolerance just because they are a religion?

 

[Maciamo]

I don't think I am confused at all. Intolerance is inexcusable and bigotry wrong whether your target is a member of a race or a religion.

big ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Absolute morals, uh ? Alright, then in what way are you less intolerant than SVF or myself ? You only believe in your own god and your own religious sect, claim it to everyone here and defend your position, right ? The difference I see is that your are using personal attacks (e.g. calling people bigots, arrogants, lost souls...) while SVF and I are sticking to pointing out the inconsistencies, illogicisms, or contradictions found in the Bible, Christianity or other religions.

I don't think the attacks on Christianity being made on this forum are rational or open minded- nor are they based on logical analysis or for rational reasons.

Easy to say, but nevertheless it is. We analyses some parts of the Bible (e.g. 10 commandments), and explain rationally what we think is not coherent (e.g. OT god and NT god have opposite personalities), false (Adam and Eve were not placed on earth as Homo Sapiens by god, as there are proofs of human evolution, which continues to this day), of dubious morality (despotic god that promotes slavery...), etc. That is not intolerant, it just happens to be proven facts or obvious contradictions.

Simply because some atheists hate Christianity does not give them a right to be intolerant.

This is where you are wrong. Christians are intolerant of Atheists, because Christianity is an exclusive and proselytising religion, which aim is to convert all humanity to its cause. That is why Atheists have the right as human beings to defend their opinions in response to this. To give you an analogy, oppressed people have the right to find back for their rights. Atheism does not oppress people, because it has no cause or faith to proselytise for. Christianity does. Another analogy is that murder is not a crime if it is self-defence, and non-religious people are acting as self-defense against people who try to convert them to their religion. All Atheist arguments on this forum are based of reason or facts, and so cannot be seen as intolerant. But most arguments (not all, I admit*) in favour of Christianity are based


* e.g. some people need religious communities to live more happily.

And simply because I am a Christian does not take away my right to defend my faith.

Then defend it ! Stop making personal attacks by calling people intolerant, arrogant or ignorant, and show us that our reasoning, or the facts we put forward are false. Just claiming that you "know God" or that "religion has brought good things to you" is not a valid justification for us/others. We do not tell you that we "know" doesn't exist because we can feel it, or that religion has brought bad things to us, as a justification. We could try to assess the effect of Christianity on society as a whole, or compare which branch of Christianity is more tolerant, liberal or reasonable. But we don't just say, "I don't like your beliefs, so you are wrong". Only people who lack valid arguments can answer that.

We don't force you to accept our reasonings and facts. You are free to believe what you want, but so are we. If you don't like what we say, you don't have to read our posts. If you cannot defend yourself properly, you don't have to reply. But understand that we are not "attacking you" but just testing the veracity of a particular religion (again, not you, but the religion). So don't attack us back, but our arguments.

Now I did not claim, nor did anyone else claim to be able to prove one's faith. The attack started from your quarter and I would throw it in with the preaching of those boorish prosletyzers you claim to hate.

The attacks started with Christianity forcing my/our ancestors to convert, and continued with the crusades, the inquisition, etc.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't think I am confused at all.

Yes, you are. You are confused on the terms of "bigot, hate, witticism, and intolerance," and the proper application of them to targets. You are also confused on "respect" and want to impose your meanings of those terms only to targets that do not include you.

Intolerance is inexcusable and bigotry wrong whether your target is a member of a race or a religion.

Yes, it is. But before you can apply those terms you have to not be confused by what they mean and how they are properly applied. When you look up those terms in a dictionary, please do so with a mirror at your side.

big ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Yes, we know. Now use it properly without prejudice.

I don't think the attacks on Christianity being made on this forum are rational or open minded- nor are they based on logical analysis or for rational reasons.

That is because you are under the lense of scrutiny wiggling around like worms in a petri dish (academic analogy only -- not personal). No one likes to be exposed. Feeling naked in front of others can be a strange feeling if you have an ugly birthmark to hide.

Simply because some atheists hate Christianity does not give them a right to be intolerant.

We don`t hate Christianity so much -- we hate the superstitions and the lies it is built on. I pity those duped by it. I view myself as a deprogrmer that families hire when their children have been brain washed by a cult. All cultists cling to their cult group as members of the Cult of Christus do.

And simply because I am a Christian does not take away my right to defend my faith.

Of course it doesn`t. Has anyone said you do not have the right to defend your faith?

Now I did not claim, nor did anyone else claim to be able to prove one's faith. The attack started from your quarter and I would throw it in with the preaching of those boorish prosletyzers you claim to hate.

There has been no attack. Just debating and discussing and trying to show how the BWOG could not or should not be held as truth by reasonable minds. Attacks are blind and not built on reason or logic. If anything, our discussion against the BWOG is a prosecution of arguments with reason and logic.

 

[No-name]

You guys are free to believe however you want. I never judged you. I never called you lost (except in response to a direct connection. You guys don't have sacred texts to ridicule or a diety to call names...but I have not ridiculed the texts sacred to or dieties worshiped by others.

If Strongvoicesforward would refrain from his self made up acronyms like BWOG, and from ridiculing my beliefs as superstitions, or calling God- Bgod, fairy king god and the like- I might settle down and actually respond to what SFV thinks is "reason and logic" and Maciamo thinks are "arguments." These are not arguments or witticisms they are a disrespectful ridiculing of the faith and beliefs of another. I have asked politely and insistantly that it be stopped- and it continues. That is intolerant. That is bigotry. It is wrong and no one should tolerate it.

 

[PRIZMATIC]

:blush: Andrey Makarevich, the russian poet and the musician, in one of the songs has written - " Everyone believe in the exception ( ) of myself ( ) , being surprised at times, that there is no "confirmation" of that "... Basically these words reflect the reason of " many collisions of opinions "...

 

[No-name]

What I'm getting from Maciamo, an administrator is that it is not bigotry or intollerance to ridicule Christians and Christianity, but that I am a bigot because all Christians judge people. Straightforwardvoices thinks it strenghthens his argument to demean every aspect of Chritianity and make up cute names and acronyms- in spite of being told this is offensive- he continues claiming that it is funny and witty. He also claims that the Christians are the bigots, but when called on his bigotry and intollerance his response is that I should hold a mirror up to myself. (and where have I shown myself intollerant of his or anyone else's views?)

I don't know when this became okay. When Mars Man started his threads, we had civil discussion- where Chritianity was the topic not the target. Mars Man, Tsuyoiko, Parousia, Mycernius, studyonline, and even revenant, Doc and Pachipro participated- in spite of their differences in viewpoint. This is merely a couple of guys having fun slamming an ancient religion apparently because they think it is funny. So I guess my question from Maciamo is this- Is religious intollerance to be expected, anticipated and encouraged in this forum?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

What I'm getting from Maciamo, an administrator is that it is not bigotry or intollerance to ridicule...

I am adding witticism to the discussion from time to time. No different when a Xtian chuckles and dismisses the Darwinian theory that we come from primates.

Strongvoicesforward thinks it strenghthens his argument to demean every aspect of Chritianity and make up cute names and acronyms- in spite of being told this is offensive- he continues claiming that it is funny and witty.

I have never claimed my acronyms are funny or witty. My acronyms are merely tools so I don`t have to type common phrases in their entirety. But, the sound of them is not loss on me. But that is different from the purpose of them.

I have never thought acronyms are a part of strengthening arguments. Why do you suppose I do? What do you base that statement on?

Again, you are not being demeaned. The BWOG is simply being exposed -- kind of like exposing a puss oozing wound to fresh air -- it helps the healing process.

He also claims that the Christians are the bigots, but when called on his bigotry and intollerance his response is that I should hold a mirror up to myself. (and where have I shown myself intollerant of his or anyone else's views?)

Where have I claimed Xtians are bigots? If I did, it may have been only after fending off your innitial childish claims. Can you show me where I unequivicably stated that in a place where I had not been replying to you harrying me? All my responses to your childish claims have been reactionary -- not laubing the first charges. Besides, I don't need to call Xtians bigots. Their own book, superstitious doctrines that lead to back bending acrobats, and the way they lead their lives with their smug attitude does it for me. They relieve me of the responsibility and duty to do so.

I don't know when this became okay.

The day your Fairy God King put chisel to stone and carved out his first Commandment and became intolerant by saying "Thou shalt have no Gods before me."

When Mars Man started his threads, we had civil discussion- where Chritianity was the topic not the target.

This is not MM's thread and stop imploring his thread as if it were the Garden of Eden Fairy God Land thread. Not all people discuss and debate in a style that tip toes around the truth. I do not. Learn to deal with different styles of debate so that you may confront them successfuly when you encounter them in the future. I have been well within the bounds of debate style and have not thrown any expletives or pajoratives at you. Stop being so sensitive to witticisms and I will not have to repeat myself a hundred times. You are making my poor typing fingers tired by making me type so much due to your whaaaaambulance trips to the Whine Hospitol.

This is merely a couple of guys having fun slamming an ancient religion apparently because they think it is funny.

I don`t view deprogramming cult members as fun. It is hard work -- albeit satisfying work that brings gratification when superstitions are exposed for the lies they are founded on. Getting through to a well indoctrinated cult member is like cracking open a hard nut.

So I guess my question from Maciamo is this- Is religious intollerance to be expected, anticipated and encouraged in this forum?

There is no "religious intollerance" going on. It and your thoughts of persecution are all in your head -- like your Fairy God King. You are free and you have been invited to post your beliefs and defense of them. Now, if Maciamo said you can`t post on your beliefs and defenses of them, then that would be "religious intolerance." But, he never made that proclamation, did he? You are just trying to twist the meaning of the word "religious intolerance" to stifle debate style and witticisms because you are sensitive and want others to dance and tip toe around your personal beliefs, giving them special status over other topics.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Moved from the thread, ?gWhat does relgion bring that nothing else can bring??h
-------------------------------------------------------------

Sabro: ...Jesus was crucified on Friday, died and was buried Friday night and rose on Sunday...

Well, then that makes Jesus out to be wrong, deceptive, or a liar and not very good at prophesying?

According to Jesus himself, he told his followers that like Jonas was in the belly of a huge fish for three days, so must He be in the belly of the Earth for three days.

Here:

Matt 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If Jesus was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday, I count only 2 nights. Where is the 3rd night? Is this more Bible math that tells us one is three and three are one? Where is the 3rd night, Sabro?

Now, why doesn?ft Jesus, who is in fact BGod know how long he will be burried? He is prophesying about himself and gets it wrong. Prophecies are made for a reason. Prophecies are made to give credence to claims. The Hijacked BWOG tries to rely heavily on prophecies to push their claims that Jesus is the Savior, but for the life of Him, he can`t even get a 3 day prophecy down right. Why aren`t the failed prophecies of the central figure of their religion given credit to?

This is all just ?gpick and choose?h to further their agenda to point and lead to showing that Jesus is the Savior, but then, sweep under the rug anything that shows otherwise. What is the height of hypocracy is when the apologists cry that the critics of the BWOG are ?gpicking and choosing?h to show that their passages are pointing to the falsity of the Hijacked Book of Sacred Jewish Writings are indeed wrong but that their choices to prove their claim are indeed right. Does that sound like a fair and level playing field to you? It doesn`t me.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...and a whale is not a huge fish -- it is a mammal.

 

[No-name]

Yep...and the classification of animals before the advent of modern biology was already previously discussed and dismissed by you.

 

[Maciamo]

You guys are free to believe however you want. I never judged you.

Are you saying that in all honesty ? Isn't calling SVF bigoted, opinionated, arrogant or aggressive, a way of judging him negatively ?

These are not arguments or witticisms they are a disrespectful ridiculing of the faith and beliefs of another.

You are the one judging that it is disrespectful, because you are over-sensitive on this particular issue. However, I don't see how mentioning facts or merely pointing out contradictions in the Bible can be disrespecful. It is not more disrespectful than pointing out contradictions in a country's law, or someone's reasoning. Now if you think that doubting (not denying) the historical existence of Jesus by lack of evidence, or mentioning that the OT god and NT god have a different personality, or that the Bible does not sanction slavery, are all disrespectful, then you are clearly oversenstitive and too partial.

 

[Maciamo]

Yep...and the classification of animals before the advent of modern biology was already previously discussed and dismissed by you.

But how do you reconcile that mistake with god's omniscience, or at least god knowing more than modern humans, if the bible happens to be the word of god ?

Please do not reply by saying we are intolerant or aggressive or disrespectful, because in fact, we are genuinely interested to know. Just explains how you see it, and we will accept and be tolerant towar your point of view. But so far, you have not shared your opinion on this.