Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 generalgrog wrote:

Also FYI...humanism is a religion, even the supreme court of the USA(and the original humanist manifesto no less) say so.

Arguing that "secular humanism" is a religion is not the same thing as arguing that "humanism" is a religion.

There is a reasonable case for the former, but not for the later.

Relapse wrote:

Same thing. I don't believe anyone with an honest idea they want to share in a respectful way should be suppressed. I know it happens in all forms and manner, though.

See, it that "respectful" bit which bothers me; as it prevents people from being honest.

 Frazzled wrote:
NO. Its because Christians follow the New Testament.

Three things:

1. That's a complete lie. Both are sacred books according to the Catholic Church, and Christians quote the Old Testament all the time when it suits them.
2. Jesus references it frequently himself in the New Testament, including the weird gruesome parts. So if you follow Jesus teachings, you can't ignore the Old Testament.
3. While the Old Testament is easier to pick on, and I did use it as a specific example, I was not limiting myself to just that one text. People cherry-pick the New Testament just as much.

Again, please use your clever words against Islam etc.

No.

Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with, and the most relevant to my life. I see no reason to beat around the bush by discussing it in the wider context of "Judeo-Christian" religions. Also it is not my intent to "bash" anyone (at least not too hard), and Formosa being a bigot is none of my concern. The length and breadth of my argument is that the Bible is practically impossible to follow to the letter (even if you wanted to). Christians are thus forced to cherry-pick, ignore, and "reinterpret" the parts that don't fit. Or if you happen to be on the Vatican Council you can just 'make gak up!' (like that whole Limbo thing). This really undermines the whole concept.

 d-usa wrote:
Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?

Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.

Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Strangely Christians don't have to comply with kosher meals, laws, etc (cause you know that whole gentile thing).

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely Christians don't have to comply with kosher meals, laws, etc (cause you know that whole gentile thing).

They also don't need to hate on gays and quote Leviticus as a foundation for it all the time either, but still happens quite frequently.

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Yeah whatever tough guy... Since your face is thousands of miles away, this will just have to do.


EDIT: (also I never quoted Leviticus, my example was just made up for comic effect, but I can see how it is reminiscent of passages in Leviticus.)

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely Christians don't have to comply with kosher meals, laws, etc (cause you know that whole gentile thing).

They also don't need to hate on gays and quote Leviticus as a foundation for it all the time either, but still happens quite frequently.

And then others

1. Point out hey thats not New Testament so SHUTUPYOFACE!
2. Carry Rodney the gay wiener dog around like a bad breathed rag doll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Yeah whatever tough guy... Since your face is thousands of miles away, this will just have to do.

Thats ok. Don't pay attentions to the van parked across the street from you, or the barking sounds inside.

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Oh! Thuggery! I know that game.

I would happily call you a liar, to your face.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats ok. Don't pay attentions to the van parked across the street from you, or the barking sounds inside.

Haha I'd be mightily impressed if you did come all the way here to see me, though I'd probably just end up inviting you to stay for beers and boardgames

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?

Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.

So you feel like you get to decide what religious texts and religious laws apply to members of whatever religion you choose and then judge those people for your decision when they don't follow the random rules you applied to them?

I know vegans that are less smug about their perceived self-righteousness than that...

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

Also FYI...humanism is a religion, even the supreme court of the USA(and the original humanist manifesto no less) say so.

Arguing that "secular humanism" is a religion is not the same thing as arguing that "humanism" is a religion.

There is a reasonable case for the former, but not for the later.

Relapse wrote:

Same thing. I don't believe anyone with an honest idea they want to share in a respectful way should be suppressed. I know it happens in all forms and manner, though.

See, it that "respectful" bit which bothers me; as it prevents people from being honest.

You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.

 d-usa wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you saying the Levitical code applies to you or are you also being creative with your own interpretation?

Since I do not claim to follow the Bible: I'm happy to outright ignore Leviticus along with the rest of the book, whether it applies to me or not.

So you feel like you get to decide what religious texts and religious laws apply to members of whatever religion you choose and then judge those people for your decision when they don't follow the random rules you applied to them?

I know vegans that are less smug about their perceived self-righteousness than that...

Right you're not making any sense.

I didn't decide what the Bible says, if I did it would probably be a lot clearer on subjects like murder and slavery. And they are not 'random rules' it is 'allegedly' the sacred word of god etc...

I don't care who thinks what applies to them, or how people want to live their lives. All that I'm concerned with is the fact that 'making up rules' and 'choosing the rules you like from a book that can justify anything' is essentially the same thing, for arguments sake.

So you're no different than any religious person out there then, since you are making up rules yourself.

 d-usa wrote:
So you're no different than any religious person out there then, since you are making up rules yourself.

Clearly I am because I freely admit that I made up the rules I live by.

People who claim to follow the bible, but really only pick and choose the bits that suit them, not only lack that integrity, but are also painting their made up rules as 'divine'.

Relapse wrote:
You can be totaly respectful with someone and be truthful at the same time.

One man's respectful comment is another man's heresy. I mean no offence when I say that I believe that all religion is utterly wrong - there is nothing supernatural in the universe; no gods, spirits, etc. However, to someone who holds religious beliefs close to their heart, that simple statement can be incredibly offensive.

"Respectful" is an utterly subjective term and is useless when used in relation to subjects which can be highly charged with emotion.

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you're no different than any religious person out there then, since you are making up rules yourself.

Clearly I am because I freely admit that I made up the rules I live by.

People who claim to follow the bible, but really only pick and choose the bits that suit them, not only lack that integrity, but are also painting their made up rules as 'divine'.

They are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.

 d-usa wrote:
They are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.

No one is making up rules for them; if their book says "do X, Y and Z, and don't do A, B and C", yet they rationalise away the part where it says "do Y", and just ignore the bit where it says "Don't do C" then it is entirely their problem if people then take issue with them then trying to use the part where it says "And oh, by the way, M" to then try and force everyone else to do what they want because they really like M...

 d-usa wrote:
hey are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.

No it's because they are not following the rules that they claim to be following.

For example look at the 'God hates fags ' people. The truth is: they hate fags. But they have found a passage in the Bible that agrees with their made up rule (the rule that being gay is wrong). But their posters don't say "I hate fags" they say that God does. And of course they will also claim that God being God can't be wrong, therefore they can't be wrong...

Except they all ignore passages from the same book that say things about mixing wool and linen, because that wasn't something they cared about. Invoking God when it suites your purpose and ignoring him when it doesn't is why they lack integrity, it's practically the definition of the word.

So you don't judge all Christians for not following every written rule in the book that you think they should follow?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They are only lacking integrity because you judge them for not following the rules that you made up for them.

No one is making up rules for them; if their book says "do X, Y and Z, and don't do A, B and C", yet they rationalise away the part where it says "do Y", and just ignore the bit where it says "Don't do C" then it is entirely their problem if people then take issue with them then trying to use the part where it says "And oh, by the way, M" to then try and force everyone else to do what they want because they really like M...

Well, nobody should be forced to follow any religious rule that they don't want to follow. Legislating religious rules is always a bad idea.

 d-usa wrote:
So you don't judge all Christians for not following every written rule in the book that you think they should follow?

Is your whole argument going to consist of repeatedly asking me questions framed as "So you blah blah blah, because you think blah blah?", it seems like kind of a weak strategy, am I supposed to fall into some kind of trap here? or are you just trying stupid me to death? I've explained this quite a lot now. Enough I think.

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you don't judge all Christians for not following every written rule in the book that you think they should follow?

Is your whole argument going to consist of repeatedly asking me questions framed as "So you blah blah blah, because you think blah blah?", it seems like kind of a weak strategy, am I supposed to full into some kind of trap here? or are you just trying stupid me to death? I've explained this quite a lot now. Enough I think.

All you have explained is that you think people who claim that they follow a religion based on the bible should follow every single rule in the bible and that you think they are lacking integrity if they don't follow your interpretation of their religion.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Oh! Thuggery! I know that game.

I would happily call you a liar, to your face.

I think, if I know Frazzled, is that he would bust out laughing. He never strikes me as an internet tough guy. Only guys with small weiners act tough on the internet, and I have been told he's got a big one.

Please quote the part of my post that was bigoted, as all you will see there is a series of examples that some may find uncomfortable, pointing out that the religious people I have known have been hypocrites is not bigotry, nor is showing my brother in law that abusing his religion in an attempt to control a member of my family is against said religion, again not bigotry, infact I'm unsure said persons even know what a bigot is to attempt to label Me such, useing a person's own set of morals and beliefs to show them that they have made an error and are behaving badly isn't bigotry..it's diplomacy, a bigot wouldn't even have attempted to even understand.

I pointed out the horrific things I have seen done in the name of God and religion, I have seen personally what happens when someone abuses that power, yes I distrust it and as I said before I distrust ANY institutions that condone that behavior, leave people to do as they please, if people want to worship a God..whatever leave them to it, only so long as they leave me and others alone if we do not share it.

 sebster wrote:
Of course there are ideas... which are, of course, believed by people. The former requires the latter.

Well, then I guess “Other than some bricks and mortar and the odd spectacular headpiece, a religion is the people that follow it.” was a totally wrong statement. Because, you know, it is totally denying the ideas.

Relapse wrote:
The basic Christian tenant is love and charity.

Is it ? I thought it was about how wanting to be able to tell good from evil without relying on an omnipotent father figure was wrong, deserving massive collective punishment and all that.

 d-usa wrote:
All you have explained is that you think people who claim that they follow a religion based on the bible should follow every single rule in the bible and that you think they are lacking integrity if they don't follow your interpretation of their religion.

“I am a vegan. I do not eat meat, because killing animals is unethical. Hey, let us go get some bacon. Bacon is okay, because it starts with the letter b, so it is not unethical to eat it.”

The correct analogy would be "I read a book about nutrition. They talked about bacon being okay in moderation, so I think that's what I am going to do." And the somebody else comes around and says "the same book also talks about being vegan. So therefore you are wrong for moderating bacon because of the book but not being vegan even though that is also in the book".

@Hybrid,

From 1 Corinthians 13

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.


As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.

Let me get this straight, people who don't like religion constantly reference dogma (not poster dogma I don't know why anyone references him ) as a reason for not liking it. Apparently people who follow a religion aren't allowed to personalise and think about their religion but have to follow every part. I know which I think is dogmatic.

Also FRazzled , the only people threatened by someone in a van are people who have kids... It bares(bears- dammit a day of no spelling for me) thinking about , your statement had me laughing especially when you threw dogs into the mix.

 d-usa wrote:
The correct analogy would be "I read a book about nutrition. They talked about bacon being okay in moderation, so I think that's what I am going to do." And the somebody else comes around and says "the same book also talks about being vegan. So therefore you are wrong for moderating bacon because of the book but not being vegan even though that is also in the book".

Haha that's actually quite funny

Bullockist wrote:
Apparently people who follow a religion aren't allowed to personalise and think about their religion but have to follow every part.

Yeah, and why do we not personalize science too ? I mean, we do not need to follow every part of the gravitation theory, why can we not sometime just design some airplanes that have a negative weight ?
Oh, I know. It is okay to personalize one's fantasy word, but one rather not go around personalizing reality, because else we get some not working airplane. If religion had any hint of truth, nobody would want to personalize it.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whats funny is the reaction you'd get if you called me a liar to my face.

Oh! Thuggery! I know that game.

I would happily call you a liar, to your face.

Then you can kiss your ankles goodbye!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats ok. Don't pay attentions to the van parked across the street from you, or the barking sounds inside.

Haha I'd be mightily impressed if you did come all the way here to see me, though I'd probably just end up inviting you to stay for beers and boardgames

I apologize. That was rude. Here being called a liar is a fighting offense and I'm too old a bird to fight.

Relapse wrote:
As far as collective punishment goes, we are responsible for our own wrong doings, not Adam's.

Is that why women suffer when giving birth ?