666

Krumplenump said:
I hardly took offence at Barnabas' post, arbygil, and I certainly cannot see what would constitute 'uncivil' behaviour in my response.

I think when discussing religion the potential for 'offence' is so great that to effectively moderate against it would require a prompt ban on the entire topic or in other words refuting it becoming a taboo. Which, I might add, is what organised faith has been pining for all along.
Click to expand...

Either way, Krumple - if there's no offense, then there's none to take. It's a friendly heads up, just in case some do. You weren't the only one I was cautioning, so please don't think I was singling you out.

Carry on! Debate away.....
 
Krumplenump said:
I wasn't talking about a threat you made to me, I wrote the 'age old religious threat' of 'believe in god and jesus and you'll go to heaven', which is basically 'if you don't believe in god and jesus you'll go to hell'. This is a threat designed to evoke fear which is why many people can't bring themselves to deny the existence of a god.

And don't fret, you didn't offend me; though I might point out that religion gets offended on far less.
Click to expand...

realy, mine would seem to be a weak example of that then, as I didn't even mention hell. Now go back to the great awakening, they had some fire and brimstone sermons(most of which I either haven't read or don't agree with). One in particular about God holds us like spiders over a pit of fire about to drop us at any moment. Now that I would deem threatening, and just for the record find the entire thought ludacris(not the artist).

also I would say that about the offense part, realy depends in the person. I can take alot, however when something is posted like Christians parents are abusve on the level of rapist and child molestors. now that offended me.
 
Barnabas said:
realy, mine would seem to be a weak example of that then, as I didn't even mention hell. Now go back to the great awakening, they had some fire and brimstone sermons(most of which I either haven't read or don't agree with). One in particular about God holds us like spiders over a pit of fire about to drop us at any moment. Now that I would deem threatening, and just for the record find the entire thought ludacris(not the artist).

also I would say that about the offense part, realy depends in the person. I can take alot, however when something is posted like Christians parents are abusve on the level of rapist and child molestors. now that offended me.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, are you in incapable of seeing how these two sentences are one and the same?

1. 'believe in god and jesus and you'll go to heaven'
2. 'if you don't believe in god and jesus you'll go to hell'.

You didn't need to mention hell. Denying that religion has been and still using hellfire as a manipulative tool is silly.

And picking and choosing which parts of scripture to believe and which parts not to believe does nothing to corroborate the former.
 
Krumplenump said:
I'm sorry, are you in incapable of seeing how these two sentences are one and the same?

1. 'believe in god and jesus and you'll go to heaven'
2. 'if you don't believe in god and jesus you'll go to hell'.

You didn't need to mention hell. Denying that religion has been and still using hellfire as a manipulative tool is silly.

And picking and choosing which parts of scripture to believe and which parts not to believe does nothing to corroborate the former.
Click to expand...

I haven't even mention scripture, what made you make that jump. Also I don't deny that people use helfire as a manipulative tool, In fact I just posted a part of a sermon that did. Then I told you that it was rubbish.

Also why haven't you answered my question? How much of the Bible have you read?
 
Krumplenump said:
edit: I read snippets of it at school when some were handed out for free, and have read various passages though can't recall any. I remember a few years back though I marked two pages in different parts that were utter blatant contradictions of each other. Also the Koran.
Click to expand...

realy, they handed them out at school. I practically get in trouble for bringing mine. Goes to show how different places are.

but yeah, a couple of snippets wouldn't hold well for any kind of knowledge. I would ask about the pages but I'm sure you don't remember. If you could will your self through look through Mark or Luke you would learn alot. I mean hell we even have classes hear that are devoted to reading things like Dawkin's "God Delusion" and similar liturature for at least no other reason then to know that there are critics out there, whom can form a well placed point.
 
I've read a lot of the Bible. In fact, I started this thread back when the forum was just starting...

http://forum.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=139&highlight=homophobic

And I'll tell you that there is a lot to be desired from the Bible, but I regret demeaning the beliefs of Christians. I think that it is wonderful that there are people out there who want to dedicate themselves to something greater. Even without religion we all wouldn't have the same values and even if everyone was the same religion we would all have different interpretations of it. Different interpretations shouldn't necessarily be seen as "cherry picking" because the explanations for why people follow certain parts of the Bible and not others can be complex and very reasonable.

I think when it comes to issues like these we just have to accept that some people need it and some people don't.
 
Barnabas said:
realy, they handed them out at school. I practically get in trouble for bringing mine. Goes to show how different places are.

but yeah, a couple of snippets wouldn't hold well for any kind of knowledge. I would ask about the pages but I'm sure you don't remember. If you could will your self through look through Mark or Luke you would learn alot. I mean hell we even have classes hear that are devoted to reading things like Dawkin's "God Delusion" and similar liturature for at least no other reason then to know that there are critics out there, whom can form a well placed point.
Click to expand...

religion is not on a 50-50 par of plausibility with reason, therefore having the latter as curriculum is FAR more logical than having religion taught or discussed in schools.

England is NOT a secular state - but the people are much less caring of religion on the whole than in the States.

I have put a koran, torah and bible on my amazon wishlist, but don't get exited, it's so I can quote crap from all three and have more knowledge of what I oppose.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
I think when it comes to issues like these we just have to accept that some people need it and some people don't.
Click to expand...

This x1000.

I have been saying this for years; there is a religion for everyone. What works for you, might not work for someone else. Find what works for you the best, and brings you the most happiness and clarity, and let others follow what fits the best for them.
 
IndigoSensor said:
This x1000.

I have been saying this for years; there is a religion for everyone. What works for you, might not work for someone else. Find what works for you the best, and brings you the most happiness and clarity, and let others follow what fits the best for them.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed I am also a firm believer in this message, there is a variety of religions to fit all kinds of beliefs and people, if you do not like a certain one it does not give you the right to flame another one, just follow whatever you believe brings you the most happiness and respect what others belief brings them the most happiness.

x100000
 
There are some natural boundaries to this "let others believe anything" concept.
 
I'm not saying people shouldn't not 'need it', I couldn't give two hoots about what people believe and it's not my right to demand anyone change their beliefs. However people fail to recognise that contending with faiths based on control and opposing their core tenants of what are in actually very capricious ideals has NOTHING to do with opposing an individuals method of practising their beliefs.
 
enfp can be shy said:
There are some natural boundaries to this "let others believe anything" concept.
Click to expand...

The natural boundary tends to be when they try to impose it on you. That is why politics are such a horrible but necessary evil. Even within the smallest tribes, there are differences of opinion on what people should believe and how they should conduct themselves. Civilized society is the attempt to explore the possibilities and to set up a market place of ideas whereby the best ones win through competition and cooperation. For centuries, religion was a great idea, but under the pressure of science and the rise of technology, pantheistic and atheistic concepts have been rising.
 
Actually, no feral child, ever, has imagined god, so these beliefs do not come from within.

On the other hand, people like Ramanujan have developed the whole math of the time, and beyond, on their own.
 
Last edited:
Krumplenump said:
I'm not saying people shouldn't not 'need it', I couldn't give two hoots about what people believe and it's not my right to demand anyone change their beliefs. However people fail to recognise that contending with faiths based on control and opposing their core tenants of what are in actually very capricious ideals has NOTHING to do with opposing an individuals method of practising their beliefs.
Click to expand...

The reality is that no two individuals have the same religion. You may think that every Christian holds more or less the same conception of Christianity and the Bible, but really every Christian practices their own Christianity and has their own unique perception of the Bible. So you really aren't making much progress when you challenge Christianity because there are 2 billion different forms of Christianity in the world. And even if you really do make a good point, people's cognitive biases will come into play and they will subconsciously alter their viewpoint to incorporate your argument but consciously they will think that is how they have always viewed it.
 
Barnabas said:
I knw that the whole 666 histeria was 4 years ago but, in couple of days Lucifer's gonna take over the forum. Be on your guard we have know idea where she's going to post or when.
Click to expand...


I find it so very odd that you would bring up a joke that is nearly two years old. May I ask why?
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
I've read a lot of the Bible. In fact, I started this thread back when the forum was just starting...

http://forum.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=139&highlight=homophobic

And I'll tell you that there is a lot to be desired from the Bible, but I regret demeaning the beliefs of Christians. I think that it is wonderful that there are people out there who want to dedicate themselves to something greater. Even without religion we all wouldn't have the same values and even if everyone was the same religion we would all have different interpretations of it. Different interpretations shouldn't necessarily be seen as "cherry picking" because the explanations for why people follow certain parts of the Bible and not others can be complex and very reasonable.

I think when it comes to issues like these we just have to accept that some people need it and some people don't.
Click to expand...

Great post on the whole Satya, it harkens back to the phrase

"In essentials, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things love."


Krumplenump said:
religion is not on a 50-50 par of plausibility with reason, therefore having the latter as curriculum is FAR more logical than having religion taught or discussed in schools.

England is NOT a secular state - but the people are much less caring of religion on the whole than in the States.

I have put a koran, torah and bible on my amazon wishlist, but don't get exited, it's so I can quote crap from all three and have more knowledge of what I oppose.
Click to expand...

Go to freekoran.com, they'll ship you one for free.

You should be able to walk into any church and they'll hand you a bible if you ask politley.

why is reasoning far mre logical then religion?
 
enfp can be shy said:
Actually, no feral child, ever, has imagined god, so these beliefs do not come from within.

On the other hand, people like Ramanujan have developed the whole math of the time, and beyond, on their own.
Click to expand...

No offense, but that is highly unscientific. For one, the sample size of observed feral children is not generalizable. Second, even the most primitive, isolated tribes have superstitions and myths and a conception of a supernatural world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top