Something that makes me disturbed.

[jamiethelanky]

That people are willing to throw the opinions of others down the toilet simply to impress their belief systems on others. I'm meaning wanting a greater institutionalisation of religion - particularly Christianity. It attacks free thought and freedom to choose religion; it also is tainted by extremists who will simply ignore empiricism if it does not fit their ideals - logic if it means they have to reassess their own views...

[xxlt]

And again, JTL is spot on.

BTW JTL, the level of tolerance you have shown recently is impressive. I don't know if I should emulate you or negative rep you. :rotf:

[CloeHokie]

Agree. Why push your beliefs on others? There are a lot of people from all over the world that have learned Gods teachings in different ways. Much like any topic there will be different opinions and thoughts. There is no One answer. To each his own.

[Samhain]

Agree. Why push your beliefs on others? There are a lot of people from all over the world that have learned Gods teachings in different ways. Much like any topic there will be different opinions and thoughts. There is no One answer. To each his own.


In my experience as a non-believer, the problem lies in the core beliefs of Christianity. Their faith teaches them that it is their duty to evangelize. If they truly believe in hell, then conscientious Christians probably just want to spare the people they percieve to be damned in the future from he double hockeysticks. I'm not sure that the best way to carry this mission out is through governmental coercion, but they may think it's the only way. I certainly don't approve of it, but I kind of get where the reasonable and genuine ones are coming from. Shutting them up in some cases is equivalent to denying them the right to practice their religion. I say whatever. You can talk to me all you want, but I have a very short attention span, and pride myself on my ability to ignore people. Just ask my gf.:thumbsup:

[CloeHokie]

In my experience as a non-believer, the problem lies in the core beliefs of Christianity. Their faith teaches them that it is their duty to evangelize. If they truly believe in hell, then conscientious Christians probably just want to spare the people they percieve to be damned in the future from he double hockeysticks. I'm not sure that the best way to carry this mission out is through governmental coercion, but they may think it's the only way. I certainly don't approve of it, but I kind of get where the reasonable and genuine ones are coming from. Shutting them up in some cases is equivalent to denying them the right to practice their religion. I say whatever. You can talk to me all you want, but I have a very short attention span, and pride myself on my ability to ignore people. Just ask my gf.:thumbsup:

Lol

[busamboy]

Lol

No, he is serious, she told me:p

[Samhain]

No, he is serious, she told me:p

You mean you actually listen to her? What kind of man are you?

[jamiethelanky]

In my experience as a non-believer, the problem lies in the core beliefs of Christianity. Their faith teaches them that it is their duty to evangelize. If they truly believe in hell, then conscientious Christians probably just want to spare the people they percieve to be damned in the future from he double hockeysticks. I'm not sure that the best way to carry this mission out is through governmental coercion, but they may think it's the only way. I certainly don't approve of it, but I kind of get where the reasonable and genuine ones are coming from. Shutting them up in some cases is equivalent to denying them the right to practice their religion. I say whatever. You can talk to me all you want, but I have a very short attention span, and pride myself on my ability to ignore people. Just ask my gf.:thumbsup:
Not necessarily, it's those who fail to take the Bible in the context in which it is written - no Internet, no mass-printing of religious texts. It's a different world now, and there's maybe no need to evangelise.

[busamboy]

Something that makes me disturbed is the amount of crazy people that live on this planet! At any moment, you or I could be a victim of a crime and the outcome might not come out very well for us.

[barryllium]

In my experience as a non-believer, the problem lies in the core beliefs of Christianity. Their faith teaches them that it is their duty to evangelize. If they truly believe in hell, then conscientious Christians probably just want to spare the people they percieve to be damned in the future from he double hockeysticks. I'm not sure that the best way to carry this mission out is through governmental coercion, but they may think it's the only way. I certainly don't approve of it, but I kind of get where the reasonable and genuine ones are coming from. Shutting them up in some cases is equivalent to denying them the right to practice their religion. I say whatever. You can talk to me all you want, but I have a very short attention span, and pride myself on my ability to ignore people. Just ask my gf.:thumbsup:

I feel the need to expand upon your points here, because you have some great ones. Part of Christianity is making the choice to believe in god and Jesus. Coercing anyone takes that choice away from it, and sullies the true belief inherent in any religion. What many (not all) Christians fail to realize is the different between 1) helping someone to assess their own beliefs and choose Christianity and 2) telling someone why they are wrong and explaining to them why they need to be a Christian.

What Christianity (or the Catholic and Methodist churches, specifically, because those are the two I am very familiar with) fails to recognize in many, many instances in its teachings is human psychology. The Augustine beliefs that the church chose to go with (and thus making Pelagius a heretic) that god is behind all of our good and man is behind all our bad takes personal power away from people - giving the idea that without god (and his grace) we can do no good. So, it then follows that many Christians believe that anyone that is not Christian is doomed - for they can do no good (it also leads towards ideas like all Muslims are bad, but that's a story for another thread). So, many Christians are then led to believe they must evangelize at all costs, ignoring the respectful beliefs of many non-Christians - and any other existing conditions that should be taken into account. For instance, the "brute force" approach against someone strongly rooted in another religion will often do more to push someone away from Christianity, rather than bring them into it - whereas a respectful, understanding and accepting discussion may do more good than anything (if you believe that converting someone is indeed doing good - to me it's rather neutral). Often times, the way many people choose to evangelize (think Jehovah's witnesses) does more to hurt the cause of evangelization than help it - but blindness for the workings of the human mind tends to get in the way of understanding that.

[philhos]

Not necessarily, it's those who fail to take the Bible in the context in which it is written - no Internet, no mass-printing of religious texts. It's a different world now, and there's maybe no need to evangelise.

No need to evangelise? Are you saying that there are no misconceptions about Christianity or Jesus? Everyone perfectly understands the Bible and what it says and they've either chosen to accept it or reject it?

There will ALWAYS be a need to evangelise, but shouting at someone and/or telling someone they are going to hell is not evangelising and never was anyway. The day there is no need to evangelise is the day that Christ comes back.

[philhos]

Part of Christianity is making the choice to believe in god and Jesus. Coercing anyone takes that choice away from it, and sullies the true belief inherent in any religion.

100% true. Forcing anyone to make the choice is not allowing them a choice at all. That goes against everything Jesus taught. Jesus NEVER forced anyone to do anything.

[xxlt]

100% true. Forcing anyone to make the choice is not allowing them a choice at all. That goes against everything Jesus taught. Jesus NEVER forced anyone to do anything.

Agreed... although there was that time he forced the loaves and fishes to multiply and I always suspected that after he went to all that trouble he made everyone eat. :ninja:

[philhos]

Agreed... although there was that time he forced the loaves and fishes to multiply and I always suspected that after he went to all that trouble he made everyone eat. :ninja:

While he did force the fishes and loaves to multiply, they are not human beings.

Plus, he didn't force anyone to eat. They were just flippin' hungry from sitting around listen to Jesus drone on and on and on looking at their watches thinking "Is it noon yet? Sheesh, will he ever stop? I'm going to miss the game!"

;) :smirk:

[barryllium]

While he did force the fishes and loaves to multiply, they are not human beings.

Plus, he didn't force anyone to eat. They were just flippin' hungry from sitting around listen to Jesus drone on and on and on looking at their watches thinking "Is it noon yet? Sheesh, will he ever stop? I'm going to miss the game!"

;) :smirk:

I imagine there were a few people saying things like "I swear, if I hear one more parable, I'm leaving and starting my own religion". Little did they know... ;)

[Jumbro]

First, Jamie...your first sentence; you frequently (not on faith, but the other issue) discount the views of others insisting that your stance is the only right one. While you believe it has to do with equality, truth of the matter is you throw the opinions of others down the toilet in order to force your view of the situation on them.


ANyways, as a Catholic I must say that I do believe my faith is THE faith. In conversation (I don't just walk up to someone on the street) I will point out that I think something they are doing is wrong (if they ask why, then I might go into religion on it). I always feel as if they can do what they want and that it is God's place to make the final judgement...BUT that doesn't mean I can't tell them that I believe what they are doing is wrong. In other words, I dislike your action, not your person.

I don't even remember the last time I heard a priest say "you are going to hell because you..." I always hear them make comments like "If you are....you need to try to find help" or something along that line.

[Jumbro]

100% true. Forcing anyone to make the choice is not allowing them a choice at all. That goes against everything Jesus taught. Jesus NEVER forced anyone to do anything.


I disagree slightly. Remember the account of the woman being stoned. Jesus said (and I paraphrase) "You who without sin, let he be the first to throw a stone at her" and the accusers left.

Did he not force them to leave and force them to do the right thing through say a "guilt trip"?

[barryllium]

I disagree slightly. Remember the account of the woman being stoned. Jesus said (and I paraphrase) "You who without sin, let he be the first to throw a stone at her" and the accusers left.

Did he not force them to leave and force them to do the right thing through say a "guilt trip"?

No, Jesus merely pointed out that all people were sinners, and that the sins of this woman were no worse than his. The point of that story (I don't use the word "story" to discount anything factual, I just don't have a better word) is to point out the sinner in all of us - and the possibility of salvation despite this - not to show Jesus using a guilt trip and force anyone to do anything. He didn't forcefully make anyone leave - they left of their own accord after he made his statement.

[Jumbro]

No, Jesus merely pointed out that all people were sinners, and that the sins of this woman were no worse than his. The point of that story (I don't use the word "story" to discount anything factual, I just don't have a better word) is to point out the sinner in all of us - and the possibility of salvation despite this - not to show Jesus using a guilt trip and force anyone to do anything. He didn't forcefully make anyone leave - they left of their own accord after he made his statement.


We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. While yes, he was saying all are sinners and things like "Those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks" he also did force them not to stone her. His words were in a sense a threat....if they stoned her after hearing him, the crowds would have definately cause problems for them. His forcing them to put down their stones was no different than someone evangalizing on a minor scale (IMHO).

[barryllium]

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. While yes, he was saying all are sinners and things like "Those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks" he also did force them not to stone her. His words were in a sense a threat....if they stoned her after hearing him, the crowds would have definately cause problems for them. His forcing them to put down their stones was no different than someone evangalizing on a minor scale (IMHO).

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree (and maybe it's just the Pelagius in me, and the Augustine in you), but I'll give this one last shot ;)

In the end, everyone still had a choice here. I could choose to kick my boss in the nuts, but that would clearly be a bad move to me. So, while you could say I am forced not to do such, in the end it is still my choice. Jesus gave every person there a choice - regardless of what the consequences could have been. And you must remember, Jesus had his followers, but the masses were not always necessarily with him (in this case, it was the Pharisees - who were often in disagreement with him). So, if one person had started throwing stones, chances were that person would not have been the only one. Jesus forced no one to put down their stones - he merely gave them reason to choose to.

And to reiterate/clarify my stance on evangelization - I'm not summarily against evangelization, just the times/places/methods some people choose to use when they think they are evangelizing.

[Danno]

While he did force the fishes and loaves to multiply, they are not human beings.

Plus, he didn't force anyone to eat. They were just flippin' hungry from sitting around listen to Jesus drone on and on and on looking at their watches thinking "Is it noon yet? Sheesh, will he ever stop? I'm going to miss the game!"

;) :smirk:


PETA hates Jesus now!!! LOL :lol:

[jamiethelanky]

No need to evangelise? Are you saying that there are no misconceptions about Christianity or Jesus? Everyone perfectly understands the Bible and what it says and they've either chosen to accept it or reject it?

There will ALWAYS be a need to evangelise, but shouting at someone and/or telling someone they are going to hell is not evangelising and never was anyway. The day there is no need to evangelise is the day that Christ comes back.
Just to clarify, by evangelism I mean shouting out about it. I still think it's very much OK to just put the information out there...

[jamiethelanky]

First, Jamie...your first sentence; you frequently (not on faith, but the other issue) discount the views of others insisting that your stance is the only right one. While you believe it has to do with equality, truth of the matter is you throw the opinions of others down the toilet in order to force your view of the situation on them.


That is because it is flawless logic.

There is no competent reason to oppose the other issue. None.

[Jumbro]

That is because it is flawless logic.

There is no competent reason to oppose the other issue. None.


And I feel the same way about my faith. It is NO different in principal, but don't worry, I do not expect you in any way to admit to that.













I just plan to sit here and chuckle as I see you over and over again express what you are distrubed by, or angered by...when in fact it is the same method you use yourself.:rolleyes:

[jamiethelanky]

And I feel the same way about my faith. It is NO different in principal, but don't worry, I do not expect you in any way to admit to that.













I just plan to sit here and chuckle as I see you over and over again express what you are distrubed by, or angered by...when in fact it is the same method you use yourself.:rolleyes:
Sir, this is different to belief. I am gay, that is a scientific fact. I have no choice in the matter, logic would dictate that. So why am I not treated equally?

I would chuckle at the ludicrousness of that were it not so serious.

[philhos]

Sir, this is different to belief. I am gay, that is a scientific fact. I have no choice in the matter, logic would dictate that. So why am I not treated equally?.

By whose standards are you judging equal treatment? I would say providing an equal alternative to marriage that is in every way the same as marriage just that it's not called marriage would be providing equal treatment. Yet, you want to shove your belief that it is not equal treatment onto me and others who think like me. So, how is Jumbro wrong in his assessment?

[jamiethelanky]

By whose standards are you judging equal treatment? I would say providing an equal alternative to marriage that is in every way the same as marriage just that it's not called marriage would be providing equal treatment. Yet, you want to shove your belief that it is not equal treatment onto me and others who think like me. So, how is Jumbro wrong in his assessment?
By naming it something different promotes differences. By denying adoption rights that is a flagrant threat to equality.

[philhos]

By naming it something different promotes differences.

That's what YOU believe. And this also falls under your BELIEF that differences are bad and that differences are unequal.

By denying adoption rights that is a flagrant threat to equality.

I wouldn't say "flagrant" but I personally don't see any reason to deny adoption rights.

[jamiethelanky]

That's what YOU believe. And this also falls under your BELIEF that differences are bad and that differences are unequal.


In this case differences promote the belief that as a community we are lesser and 'undeserving' of marriage - one more hook for the bigots to hang their coats on.

[VCU Rams]

By naming it something different promotes differences. By denying adoption rights that is a flagrant threat to equality.

GLBT adoption is legal in America....

http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm

[jamiethelanky]

GLBT adoption is legal in America....

http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm
There are several states in which it isn't.

There are also the vast majority of states in which you cannot get any form of partnership.

[philhos]

In this case differences promote the belief that as a community we are lesser and 'undeserving' of marriage - one more hook for the bigots to hang their coats on.

That is your OPINION that the difference in name promotes the belief that the gay community is lesser. One in which you have no problem trying to shove onto everyone else.

And who cares what the bigots think?! Should we do everything solely based on how the bigots may use them? Maybe we should outlaw heterosexuality. That'll stop them bigots!!

[jamiethelanky]

That is your OPINION that the difference in name promotes the belief that the gay community is lesser. One in which you have no problem trying to shove onto everyone else.

And who cares what the bigots think?! Should we do everything solely based on how the bigots may use them? Maybe we should outlaw heterosexuality. That'll stop them bigots!!
No it wouldn't.

[VCU Rams]

There are several states in which it isn't.

There are also the vast majority of states in which you cannot get any form of partnership.

The "vast majority"?



Are you reading the same link Jamiepoo?

The only state that clearly outlaws single LGBT adoption is FLA, and the only states that clearly outlaw couple LGBT adoption are: FLA, MICH, MISS, and UTAH.....

All other cases are up to the individual courts as it should be IMO.

[jamiethelanky]

The "vast majority"?



Are you reading the same link Jamiepoo?

The only state that clearly outlaws single LGBT adoption is FLA, and the only states that clearly outlaw couple LGBT adoption are: FLA, MICH, MISS, and UTAH.....

All other cases are up to the individual courts as it should be IMO.
No. I said onl;y 'several' states re. adoption.

The other sentence was about partnerships.

[VCU Rams]

No. I said onl;y 'several' states re. adoption.

The other sentence was about partnerships.

Oh :thumbsup: