George Zimmerman...

Milo

DrTyore;356096 wroteWell shit...

You do realize that I have not A: referenced religion, B: Mentioned you, or C: done anything controversial... I even looked back at all my posts for the last like 1.5 months, nothing religion based at all (May 31st was closest)

So, considering all that...

This thread had nothing to do about religion and the god squad... it was about the hypocrisy and stunning failings of the legal system. You want to bust out religion? You want to suggest I'm looking for an ego stroke? Sweet.. Fine.. Let me loose..

I said nothing about your adult fairy tale... religion was not mentioned by me. The closest I said was that roughly 3+billion people were below average intelligence. That isn't theology, that's math.

I don't know precisely when I'm going to cross the line of what is appropriate here, but... Religion insults me. I'm on vacation and drunk, and I'll fire off... sorry mods!

- Religious people are fucked, the best I can think is that it is a matter of insecurity, insecurity in the matter of being scared of their own mortality, their own unimportance, or the fact that they are tremendously hypocritical..

- You ask how your own personal belief about JC is relevant? It isn't.. but the problem is that JC fans do not just keep their thoughts to themselves. They impose their political / social / guilt-based influence on everything from government policies (eg. abortion, stem cells, etc) to individual guilt and shaming (again, abortion is a prime example), they actively try to influence the macro to the micro. And to top it off, they think they are justified, and ignore their own stunningly over the top hypocrisy. If only the religious folks would fuck off publicly as much as the racists and bigots (yes, yes I did just equate them), and be considered equivalently valid, it wouldn't be as big an issue.

- You wannt bust out god? Fine.. everybody that I've ever known to be a "god-fearing" person is full of shit. They pick and choose the fucking things they like, and ignore the aspects that don't quite fit their lifestyles. Premarital sex? Yup! Lord's name in vain? Yup... fucking MEAT ON FRIDAY? Sure! But are those big deals? No no... times are different, and we need to adapt... but two fucking dudes love one another, and want to commit? Fucking ruination of our fucking society and morals!! Shall I point out it's always two dudes, and rarely vag on vag that upsets people?

- Continuing on that last bit, fuckers feel completely justified in manipulating others / influencing major decisions because some fucknut with a beard they likely made up 2000 years ago may or may not have said so.

- The fact that religious folks need to justify / benchmark their own insignificance is stunning. Heartbreaking update; the earth is more than 6500 years old, people are finite in their existence, and "supernatural" is as valid a term as "make-believe". Couple thousand years ago, fire was supernatural...

Funny story, the most painfully sad or embarrassing thing I have ever been part of in my life? When I was in 1st year University, I went to a priest to chat, to question, and to seek advice. I told my roommates of this, and didn't think anything of it.. About ten years later, two of those roomies were married with a kid, and when I went for a visit, they told me how they now try to live by JC's teachings... I groaned inwardly, but then they told me how my visit to that priest inspired them. I was heartbroken.. I was concerned that they were simply looking for something to take any sort of accountability out of their hands. A year or so after that, the fella left his wife, while pregnant, and moved in with a big-titty gal he knew. I don't blame myself, but I know that part of the justification is from religion....

I hate religion. It is a refuge for the emotionally or intellectually crippled. I'm not saying those are failings in and of themselves, or that people of lesser intelligence or in a state of emotional turmoil are somehow inferior. I am saying however that the fact that those fuckers (i.e. religious types) take vulnerable people, convince and cajole them into their dogma is abhorrent... Priests / lectors / bishops what right have you to tell gay people they can be cured? Fuck you. These are the same assholes that admonish people for being deviant, and then the most "turning around" of people they do is 10-14 year old boys. You want to talk about what is right and natural? Tell me again how you're an expert oh fucknut that swears off of sex!

Religion is a fucking crime. Religious studies? PhD's in religion? Fuck those are the people Philosophy majors should (and likely do) mock. The best thing "god" ever did for me is give me a more impactful way to curse. Seems to me your 2000 year old fucker needs me a shit tonne more than I need him.

Brent, I've never (to my knowledge) called you dumb or naive. You and I have hung out / played poker / socialized /etc etc many times. The few conflicts I can think of is when Kristy, yourself, and I were arguing over gay-ness (hint: You were wrong), and when you got pissed about me saying that "Hveepoker" was likely a douche... well, hey champ... you consult your fairytale book and generate something that makes you not feel like a complete dick.

I'm tired of holding back. I'm tired of worrying about rocking the boat. Religion served its purpose, inspiring great strides in art, social advances, and moral teachings. Tremendously important... about 10 centuries ago. We, as a people, have surpassed that point, and should be looking at an empirical, rational mentality that we can all understand and contribute to.

Religion is the new beta machine.

Of course... Math says there will likely be 3.5 billion dissenters. Fuck 'em

Mark

Jeebus Mark, tell us how you really feel . . .

Too much to deal with before work but I will start with this. The people I know whose Faith is strong, who actually "live" their Faith (as opposed to those who pick and choose like you mentioned), are some of the most serene and thoughtful people I know. They do not fear death, and that is certainly NOT the basis of their religious belief. So, while there may be some who fit into that category (Religion as crutch . . . like booze), I think you are way off base . . .

As for the picking and choosing aspect, the whole idea of religion "changing with the times" is why "progressive" Christian denominations are losing members in droves, but those "backward" Catholics are actually growing in numbers (particularly in the Third World). So, again, just a little off . . .

Lastly, as to humanity having "surpassed" the need for Religion. Really? Do you really believe that? Have you seen the world today? What "mentality" could be more "rational" than the idea that we should love others, and treat them as we would ourselves be treated.

In the end, I know I will not sway you one bit on this issue. But consider this: a smart man once said that no one is more wrong than the person who is certain in their correctness. And, though you may despise Religion, and have no use for God, God loves you anyway . . . always has.

Enjoy your vacation.

compuease

I blame fed...

compuease;356028 wrote Religious discussions never end well.... To many ppl with closed minds, at least 68.8% according to stats.>:D

Well the above certainly is a factual statement...

The Prophet 22;356087 wrotehistory tells us what happens to those that turn their backs on God. He turns His back on them. Moose is right, death will bring the truth of this matter to a close.
Prophet22

Milo;356103 wrote And, though you may despise Religion, and have no use for God, God loves you anyway . . . always has.

These two quotes seem at odds with each other despite the fact that the two creators are more pro religion than Mark.. This is the issue we have, there are so many versions and shades of religion that people can twist religion into fitting their own purpose so easily.. and do!

compuease

Word of caution, please keep the discussion on point, ie no personal attacks,
Mark and Brent may be on opposite sides of the fence in this discussion but I know they can act like gentlemen in this debate despite it's controversial nature.. GTA? Well that's just GTA stirring the pot..;) Love ya all!

FYI I sit somewhere between.. I believe in the principals of religion but not the way most man (and woman) apply them..

DrTyore

Milo;356103 wrote Lastly, as to humanity having "surpassed" the need for Religion. Really? Do you really believe that? Have you seen the world today? What "mentality" could be more "rational" than the idea that we should love others, and treat them as we would ourselves be treated.
Enjoy your vacation.

Religious adherence is getting (thankfully) lower year after year. The influence and sway of the church is less than it has likely been in history. Crime is down, quality of life is up, life expectancy is at an all time high. You think "loving" one another and treating others well is solely the domain of religion? Fuck, you must be kidding me.

Ya, I'd pretty much say we surpassed it. Face fact, mankind is better off because of the advances made by mankind. I refuse to say that some devine omnipotent power is responsible. We are where we are because, as a race, we generally kick ass.

As for the rest of what you typed... well, you're just not thinking hard enough on it, maybe if there were a convenient wiki-article for you to quote.

Mark

DrTyore

Milo;356103 wroteSo, while there may be some who fit into that category (Religion as crutch . . . like booze), I think you are way off base . . .

Also, this little pot shot? Captain Morgan never laid a guilt trip on someone because of their preferred genitalia... nice little dig, but misses the point entirely.

Mark

trigs

Milo;356060 wroteAccording to the United States Constitution . . . the idea of the separation of Church and State was written in to specifically prevent the establishment of a "State" religion, thereby allowing ALL beliefs to have equal footing under the Law. It was never meant to be used as a cudgel to prevent saddened kids from having a prayer vigil for a missing student. The concept has been co-opted by the anti-religious as a means of keeping Faith out of the public discourse.

Stolen from Wiki:

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[15]
The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789) but it was interpreted as establishing a separation of Church and State only after the letter of Jefferson (see section United States for more details). At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional, some of them with official state churches. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833.

read the wiki and i guess your right (although funny enough not for the reason in the paragraph you posted).

however, i did do some more research and it definitely seems like the wiki page is sketchy. for example, it doesn't even mention thomas paine who allegedly played a large role in the separation of church and state.

just for the record though, the concept of the separation of church and state was a concept before america was a country, so to cite the constitution as its origins is a little off. however, it does seem that it generally was to protect the citizens from a forced state religion as one can see in examples such as henry viii and the monarchs of medieval europe.

however, i still beg to differ. even if that was the original intent, why can't it work both ways now? are you suggesting that it working the other way is bad for some reason?

trigs

The Prophet 22;356087 wroteMark wants to talk about how smart he is and how dumb others are but my statement was this:

i'm not discussing mark. that's up to him.

I believe that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, lived on this earth just over 2000 years ago. He made statements that He was God. I have reasons for that that you may not accept to be true, none the less I do. AGAIN my question was this: How does my belief that “Jesus is the highest authority in my life affect how you live your life?

your belief affects me in the simplest way in that you come and post on this forum and i comment back. obviously, your group and their collective beliefs influence me daily as well and i seriously don't understand how you don't get that. can you really say that the dominant religion in this country hasn't affect everyone in that country?

And the Stand your ground law has no affect on you whatsoever. You don't even live in their country. And it certainly has no affect on me over here.

i didn't comment on this so i have no comment still.

Now as far as the rest of your post. Every president in my lifetime anyway has started their presidency with a prayer from Billy Graham. Obama broke with that and went with Rick Warren but still started his presidency in prayer. Yet America is well on it's way to becoming one of the most Godless nations earth and history tells us what happens to those that turn their backs on God. He turns His back on them. Moose is right, death will bring the truth of this matter to a close.

umm...wtf? america's gunna die because obama got the wrong prayer? i honestly have no idea what your point is here.

PM me and I will give you a challenge that I think you'd be interested in.
[Prophet22

seriously? that's so cool. i will!

Milo

trigs;356115 wroteread the wiki and i guess your right (although funny enough not for the reason in the paragraph you posted).

however, i did do some more research and it definitely seems like the wiki page is sketchy. for example, it doesn't even mention thomas paine who allegedly played a large role in the separation of church and state.

just for the record though, the concept of the separation of church and state was a concept before america was a country, so to cite the constitution as its origins is a little off. however, it does seem that it generally was to protect the citizens from a forced state religion as one can see in examples such as henry viii and the monarchs of medieval europe.

however, i still beg to differ. even if that was the original intent, why can't it work both ways now? are you suggesting that it working the other way is bad for some reason?

you asked for a source, I supplied one. I never said it was the only one. As for separation working both ways, doesn't that end up establishing atheism as the de facto State "belief" system? and would that not, therefore, defeat the purpose of separation in the first place?

DrTyore;356110 wroteAlso, this little pot shot? Captain Morgan never laid a guilt trip on someone because of their preferred genitalia... nice little dig, but misses the point entirely.

Mark

You are right Mark, it was a cheap shot, and I apologize. But please see my next for why it is not as wide of the mark as you think.

Milo

I used to tell people that I was a "lapsed" Catholic. I would joke that I was no longer a practicing Catholic because I got it right and therefore no longer needed Church. I guess you could say that I felt I had "surpassed my Faith" (to borrow Mark's turn of phrase).

The truth is that I am a failed Catholic. The reason I say "failed" is that, contrary to what was posted earlier, Faith is not easy. As a Catholic, it is damned hard to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and to adhere to the tenets of the Catholic Church. Christ taught that we should love one another as He loves us, and that we should treat our neighbours as we ourselves would wish to be treated. The Catholic Church teaches the same thing. You may scoff, and make jokes, but the Catholic Church does not "hate Fags", as that whack job in Westboro would say. No, the Catholic Church loves all, because that is what Jesus commanded us to do.

Mark touched earlier on the support for the Arts and for scientific discovery that the Church provided in the Middle Ages, but he failed to mention that some of the brightest scientific minds of the modern era were devout in their chosen Faith. Indeed, some have stated that their Faith was strengthened by the work that they were doing. Is it mere coincidence that the greatest scientific effort of recent years is referred to as the "God Particle". Perhaps, but I submit that an Atheist would have found another descriptor.

Finally, with regard to the World's need (or lack thereof) for Religion, I find it ironic that you (Mark) would be so vehemently anti-religious, given your chosen profession. You are a long way from anyone's vision of the Messiah (and indeed can be a very naughty boy), but what more "Christian" career could you choose than to be someone who works with those who need help to find their way, and assist them to improve their station in life. Even you cannot ignore the irony . . .

So, I conclude where I started, namely that I am a failed Catholic. But I know this: God loves me, as He loves all of us. We are all created in the image of God and, though we may falter and, yes, fail, He loves us still. And I can always try harder tomorrow.

As a side note, I would like to say that over the last few years these various digressions into religious debate have helped me try to discover why I failed in my Faith. not necessarily because they convinced me of anything in particular, more because they made me ask questions of myself and about my beliefs. With that in mind I would to offer a sincere "thank you" to all of you for that.

GTA Poker

Milo;356142 wroteI used to tell people that I was a "lapsed" Catholic. I would joke that I was no longer a practicing Catholic because I got it right and therefore no longer needed Church. I guess you could say that I felt I had "surpassed my Faith" (to borrow Mark's turn of phrase).

The truth is that I am a failed Catholic. The reason I say "failed" is that, contrary to what was posted earlier, Faith is not easy. As a Catholic, it is damned hard to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and to adhere to the tenets of the Catholic Church. Christ taught that we should love one another as He loves us, and that we should treat our neighbours as we ourselves would wish to be treated. The Catholic Church teaches the same thing. You may scoff, and make jokes, but the Catholic Church does not "hate Fags", as that whack job in Westboro would say. No, the Catholic Church loves all, because that is what Jesus commanded us to do.

Mark touched earlier on the support for the Arts and for scientific discovery that the Church provided in the Middle Ages, but he failed to mention that some of the brightest scientific minds of the modern era were devout in their chosen Faith. Indeed, some have stated that their Faith was strengthened by the work that they were doing. Is it mere coincidence that the greatest scientific effort of recent years is referred to as the "God Particle". Perhaps, but I submit that an Atheist would have found another descriptor.

Finally, with regard to the World's need (or lack thereof) for Religion, I find it ironic that you (Mark) would be so vehemently anti-religious, given your chosen profession. You are a long way from anyone's vision of the Messiah (and indeed can be a very naughty boy), but what more "Christian" career could you choose than to be someone who works with those who need help to find their way, and assist them to improve their station in life. Even you cannot ignore the irony . . .

So, I conclude where I started, namely that I am a failed Catholic. But I know this: God loves me, as He loves all of us. We are all created in the image of God and, though we may falter and, yes, fail, He loves us still. And I can always try harder tomorrow.

As a side note, I would like to say that over the last few years these various digressions into religious debate have helped me try to discover why I failed in my Faith. not necessarily because they convinced me of anything in particular, more because they made me ask questions of myself and about my beliefs. With that in mind I would to offer a sincere "thank you" to all of you for that.

tldr;

they rape kids, gg

Milo

Once again . . . failure of Man =/= failure of Faith.

also, not at rates any higher than any other group or profession that is involved with kids. Teachers, for example . . .

DrTyore

Milo;356142 wrote
Mark touched earlier on the support for the Arts and for scientific discovery that the Church provided in the Middle Ages, but he failed to mention that some of the brightest scientific minds of the modern era were devout in their chosen Faith. Indeed, some have stated that their Faith was strengthened by the work that they were doing. Is it mere coincidence that the greatest scientific effort of recent years is referred to as the "God Particle". Perhaps, but I submit that an Atheist would have found another descriptor.

Actually, and this is fair to say, the ability to publically state that you're not religious / don't believe in god? It's only been what, 50 years since saying that wouldn't result in public scorn and condemnation. Further, and I haven't read it, but I hope to, is "The God Delusion", which the author essentially argues that some of those great scientists were actually athiests.

Finally, with regard to the World's need (or lack thereof) for Religion, I find it ironic that you (Mark) would be so vehemently anti-religious, given your chosen profession. You are a long way from anyone's vision of the Messiah (and indeed can be a very naughty boy), but what more "Christian" career could you choose than to be someone who works with those who need help to find their way, and assist them to improve their station in life. Even you cannot ignore the irony . . .

So, the fact that I don't want to see youth who are most often disadvantaged through nature, nurture, or just dumb luck ruin their lives has to have a root in religion? People, in general, are good people. People feel bad for other people when they hear of terrible things happening to them. You don't need religion to be a morally responsible or "good" person, you need empathy.

Further still one could argue that I direct my efforts in such an occupation because it has been shown to be more cost effective than imprisonment, and therefore I'm just saving my own tax dollars :)

As a side note, I would like to say that over the last few years these various digressions into religious debate have helped me try to discover why I failed in my Faith. not necessarily because they convinced me of anything in particular, more because they made me ask questions of myself and about my beliefs. With that in mind I would to offer a sincere "thank you" to all of you for that.

I'm glad, legit, that these little arguments have helped you find whatever you feel it is you need.

See bolded.

Mark

Macke

A while back I saw a newstory that had a man on trial for murder after he filmed the act shouting nonsense like "Self defense" and "You are threatening my life"

Eventually he opened fire and killed one person of a group.

Does anyone remember this and the outcome?

Edit.. here is the story http://abcnews.go.com/US/widow-texas-man-shot-neighbor-heart-breaks-trayvon/story?id=19642899

Milo

Actually, and this is fair to say, the ability to publically state that you're not religious / don't believe in god? It's only been what, 50 years since saying that wouldn't result in public scorn and condemnation. Further, and I haven't read it, but I hope to, is "The God Delusion", which the author essentially argues that some of those great scientists were actually athiests.

Dawkins? Really? Please find a better representative than that if you wish to refute my earlier statement. The man is a hack, and there are far better people to bolster your argument than him.

So, the fact that I don't want to see youth who are most often disadvantaged through nature, nurture, or just dumb luck ruin their lives has to have a root in religion? People, in general, are good people. People feel bad for other people when they hear of terrible things happening to them. You don't need religion to be a morally responsible or "good" person, you need empathy.

I never said that it had to have a "root" in religion. What I said is that the desire to help people avoid ruining their lives, that empathy for them you spoke of, is a very Christian ethic. That is not disputable . . .

Further still one could argue that I direct my efforts in such an occupation because it has been shown to be more cost effective than imprisonment, and therefore I'm just saving my own tax dollars :smilie:

Well, the Lord helps those who help themselves, no? :D
Seriously, though, it does not change the fact that your line of work is a very "Christian" one, regardless of your motivation.

I'm glad, legit, that these little arguments have helped you find whatever you feel it is you need.

Actually, the point I was trying to make was that these discussions have helped to coalesce some thoughts I did not expect, and was not looking to find. As I said, I have failed in my Faith. I came to wonder why and, in trying to figure out what it was about the Faith of my childhood that I lost/disputed/whatever, I came to the realization that what was missing was the strength to live it. I do not feel that I "need" my Faith, as I think that is an immature way to approach it. Rather, I am at the point now of debating whether I have the strength to return to my Faith. It is a question of being proactive rather than passive.

wildbill7145

I haven't dabbled in this thread yet, and don't intend to at any length.

I did the same type of work Mark does for 10 years, albeit with Federal inmates getting out of prison. At no point in time did I feel that my work was Christian in any way, nor did I feel more or less Christian for doing it. The fact that this type of work has parallels to Christian themes in terms of motivation, does not make it Christian work in any way. Painting 'social work' as Christian is wrong in my opinion, and I know many social workers who would find it insulting.

Milo

Bill . . . I am by no means trying to insult anyone. Perhaps your comment about the "parallels" is a better way of making my point. Nor was I trying to imply that doing that type of work imbues a level of "Christianity" on the employee.

With that in mind, allow me to restate the earlier point in this way . . .

Social work, of the type that Mark currently engages in, parallels the Christian ethos very closely. I find that ironic, given his vehemently anti-religious outlook.

Fair enough?

DrTyore

wildbill7145;356176 wroteI haven't dabbled in this thread yet, and don't intend to at any length.

I did the same type of work Mark does for 10 years, albeit with Federal inmates getting out of prison. At no point in time did I feel that my work was Christian in any way, nor did I feel more or less Christian for doing it. The fact that this type of work has parallels to Christian themes in terms of motivation, does not make it Christian work in any way. Painting 'social work' as Christian is wrong in my opinion, and I know many social workers who would find it insulting.

I wish I could like this 1000x... maybe fedh8r can lend me some of his accounts.

Mark

DrTyore

Milo;356177 wroteBill . . . I am by no means trying to insult anyone. Perhaps your comment about the "parallels" is a better way of making my point. Nor was I trying to imply that doing that type of work imbues a level of "Christianity" on the employee.

With that in mind, allow me to restate the earlier point in this way . . .

Social work, of the type that Mark currently engages in, parallels the Christian ethos very closely. I find that ironic, given his vehemently anti-religious outlook.

Fair enough?

Most religions have "the golden rule" of 'don't be a dick, just like you don't like being treated like a dick' is pretty universal

This is a poster I used to have,

Religion needs to remember that the idea of "love thy neighbour" is a basic human trait that they brought into their rules, not their teachings that got us to be good to one another. Not that stealing credit / authority for ideas is anything new for religion anyways.

Mark

Milo

DrTyore;356179 wrote Religion needs to remember that the idea of "love thy neighbour" is a basic human trait that they brought into their rules, not their teachings that got us to be good to one another. Not that stealing credit / authority for ideas is anything new for religion anyways.

Mark

Yes, the Golden Rule is fairly universal, but no one has claimed otherwise.
And it may be a basic human trait, as you say, but so is the idea of conquest, of taking from another tribe/country/whatever in order to improve the lot of "your" tribe/country/whatever.

Perhaps Religion deserves the credit for codifying it in a way that states outright that such empathy is more important than the desire for "more" for oneself and one's kin.

DrTyore

Milo;356180 wroteYes, the Golden Rule is fairly universal, but no one has claimed otherwise.
And it may be a basic human trait, as you say, but so is the idea of conquest, of taking from another tribe/country/whatever in order to improve the lot of "your" tribe/country/whatever.

Perhaps Religion deserves the credit for codifying it in a way that states outright that such empathy is more important than the desire for "more" for oneself and one's kin.

I was just providing an argument about your earlier statement that my job is religious based.. parallel as the other guy said sure, but that's not because religion taught me anything, it's because my basic nature and moral compass did.

Conquest is also a natural thing, sure. Wonder if religion ever stole that too.....

Mark

« Previous Page Next Page »