The effect of religion
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
My contention is there is a higher power that should be respected and it is that repect, in my case anyway, that has an effect on how I chose to live my life. If I have any respect for the balancw of humanity it is a function of my belief in a higher power, a deep respect and admiration for what that higher power has created. If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
I can accept that that's where you get your motivation from.. in fact, a great many people do. I would be a fool to deny religion's stabilizing role in society. Is it in you to accept that others can find another reason to choose to be moral? Because if not, I feel sorry for you.. because it is that closed-mindedness that leads to incommensurable ideological gaps that never close.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
why? simply to have a circle of friends? I'm a loner by nature, a circle of friends is meaningless to me. I'm also conservative and believe in self reliance, it melds nicely with my nature.
Believe me when I say that you would not be able to live a single day of your life without the sum of support from others in our culture. You may not see the direct consequences of their support, but is there, everytime you Humans cannot live alone. Oh we can survive alone; but if everyone did so, the species would quickly end. There's a reason we band together.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
Is it in you to accept that others can find another reason to choose to be moral?
yes. I don't think I've ever said otherwise. I simply couldn't.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
:laugh: :laugh: you are still a funny clown Stan. Your forefathers died with such wish. They were more influential than you neocons. What's your worth? see how your "Dick" is being questioned now. it's better you guys save your ass now.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Your forefathers died with such wish.
And don't you wish your own had been men enough to do that?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life.
What you're describing is a tribe, a social entity hundreds of thousands of years older than a church, a social entity based not only on agreement on how to live but also on how to make a living - both ideological and functional. But since we consider tribes to be savage now, and have seen fit to do away with the most successful of our social constructs, we instead replace them with churches.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support
Essentially the only kind that matters. Physical sustenance is easy, at least these days; emotional support isn't.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
What you're describing is a tribe, a social entity hundreds of thousands of years older than a church
more of a family I would say, but I'd accept the term tribe or clan.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
But to the point of a social network, a church does in fact provide that. Actually it is much more, it provides a sense of community with interaction between folks who have the same general approach to life.
What you're describing is a tribe, a social entity hundreds of thousands of years older than a church, a social entity based not only on agreement on how to live but also on how to make a living - both ideological and functional. But since we consider tribes to be savage now, and have seen fit to do away with the most successful of our social constructs, we instead replace them with churches.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm not aware of nor am I familiar with parents relying on that community for other than emotional support
Essentially the only kind that matters. Physical sustenance is easy, at least these days; emotional support isn't.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Just wanted to come back and say I enjoyed the discussion.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The unspoken assumption here seems to be that the purpose of living a moral life is finally realized at the END of life - that is, the afterlife.
no, that is your assumption. My contention is there is a higher power that should be respected and it is that repect, in my case anyway, that has an effect on how I chose to live my life. If I have any respect for the balancw of humanity it is a function of my belief in a higher power, a deep respect and admiration for what that higher power has created. If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Morality tells us how to live with each other. I should think that to be very, very important during a lifetime.
why? simply to have a circle of friends? I'm a loner by nature, a circle of friends is meaningless to me. I'm also conservative and believe in self reliance, it melds nicely with my nature.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
If there were no higher power that I respected I'd wallow in debauchery, I'd steal from you if I thought I could get away with it, I'd lie if it would serve a purpose, etc.
I'm not surprised.
John Carson
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Your forefathers died with such wish.
And don't you wish your own had been men enough to do that?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
do what? My forefathers laid the foundation to strenghthen Islam in world and now followers doing great job. Neocons like you who are not willing to follow your Own bible, keep making fruitless effort to deal with Islam. You guys make sissy attempts by labeling it "Terrorist religion","fascism" etc while you guys know yourself that your enemies and their faith[Islam] is getting penetrated in American land day by day. Is it not lame to compare Islam with COmmunism? you guys are utter idiot to deal Islam like Communism. The Rand Report to deal with Islam by funding so called LIberal muslims and seculers[Muslim lefts] by Christian and Zions right[Neocons and Freemasons] is a funny thing. So far you guys have earned nothing because you guys following a policy which is not fruitful. I just laugh at your elders who make silly policy to deal with Islam. That britist lawrence of ARabia was infinite times better than you dumbass Americans. Learn some lesson from him to deal with Islam otherwise one day your own son will become a Muslim infront of your eyes and that day you might prefer to commit suicide. :rolleyes:
-
Where did I ever support sucide bombing?
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Where did I ever support sucide bombing?
Which part of this don't you understand?
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote to Tamimi:
This is the first time I've seen somebody on CP openly support suicide bombing.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybob -
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Where did I ever support sucide bombing?
Which part of this don't you understand?
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote to Tamimi:
This is the first time I've seen somebody on CP openly support suicide bombing.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobThe title- I don't understand why are you bringing me in the middle. I ask again what's relation of my point of view with the other guy?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Not by definition, but they certainly can. In fact many seem to resent Christians and therefore probably Jesus by proxy. By contrast, it would be completely against Christian beliefs to have disdain for Jesus and doing so would make you decidedly unchristian.
That's all besides the point. The point is that we know he attended church and accepted Jesus in a religious sense of being divine (an athiest would not). He may not have "loved Jesus" but his interpretation of him was decidedly non-athiest. He was religious and attended a Presbyterian church where he worshipped the lord. That makes him Christian.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's all besides the point
Nope. That is the point. Per your own admission, his parents made him go to church (which means against his will). He didn't "accept" Jesus because per his own words, Jesus was a symbol for the weak and defenseless and nothing more. But I'm not surprised that you're eager to paint him as something other than an atheist since you guys have such a horrible track record when it comes to violence.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It sounds to me he looks at Jesus with utter disdain.
Ah, but it also sounds like he believes in Jesus, and therefore cannot be atheist. The way he talks about him is very different to how an atheist would. Sounds to me like he was twisted enough to believe Jesus had caused him grievance. That is impossible for an atheist.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
Ah, but it also sounds like he believes in Jesus, and therefore cannot be atheist. The way he talks about him is very different to how an atheist would.
Anybody with half a brain (atheist or not) believes in Jesus. Christians specifically believe in Jesus as the son of God and their savior. Given that he referred to Jesus as a symbol for the weak and as one who "raped his soul" (obviously in a symbolic sense), then he isn't Christian. The decidedly symbolic attributes he assigns to Jesus and the fact that he revered and emulated fellow atheists clearly demonstrates his atheism. You know, it would be much healthier if you just admitted to your religions flaws so that your people stop doing this kind of thing.
-
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul. First off, he's believing in Jesus, just not in the Christian way, secondly, he believes he has a soul. Now, I wouldn't claim he's a Christian, but he is not atheist.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul.
I hate to say it, but that's obviously a figurative statement coming from an English major. How could Jesus literally rape his soul? In fact, atheists seem eager to claim that Christianity is responsible for the world's ills, so that's perfectly consistent with atheist dogma.
-
do what? My forefathers laid the foundation to strenghthen Islam in world and now followers doing great job. Neocons like you who are not willing to follow your Own bible, keep making fruitless effort to deal with Islam. You guys make sissy attempts by labeling it "Terrorist religion","fascism" etc while you guys know yourself that your enemies and their faith[Islam] is getting penetrated in American land day by day. Is it not lame to compare Islam with COmmunism? you guys are utter idiot to deal Islam like Communism. The Rand Report to deal with Islam by funding so called LIberal muslims and seculers[Muslim lefts] by Christian and Zions right[Neocons and Freemasons] is a funny thing. So far you guys have earned nothing because you guys following a policy which is not fruitful. I just laugh at your elders who make silly policy to deal with Islam. That britist lawrence of ARabia was infinite times better than you dumbass Americans. Learn some lesson from him to deal with Islam otherwise one day your own son will become a Muslim infront of your eyes and that day you might prefer to commit suicide. :rolleyes:
Damn, I agree with everything you just said. However, that doesn't change the fact that my forefathers sacrificed to give me liberty while yours gave you a totalitarian state and a dark age tribalistic culture precisely because they, like you, were not men enough to stand up with backs straight and heads held high to strive for anything more. And even if it succeeds in its goal to destroy the west, Islam will collapse from its own inability to control its urge to destroy. Islam has become nothing but a dark force for death and destruction and if it ever succeeds at destroying everything else it will then turn and destroy itself. It has no future because it has too few men worthy of the name.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
e state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist.
Even JEWS Don't want Israel to be existed. I hope yo know the difference between zions and real jews.
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik
Vikram. Please. :)
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel.
I recall reading somewhere about Hamas and other groups in the ME - a study showed that the number of radical Muslims amongst suicide bombers was not as high as most people think. A few were Christians, and some were Muslims, but not high on the 'militant Islam' scale. I'll be the first to admit I could easily be wrong though. :)
Judah Himango wrote:
the war going on in Israel is between the state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist
To a large extent, I agree, but 30 seconds of googling turned up this[^] Doesn't exactly look like the best site for unbiased information, though.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobOk Vikram. :) You're right that a small minority of Palestinians are Christians; same goes for Israelis. However, we know the people doing the bombings are Islamic radicals; the whole "Allah ahkbar" thing is a sure giveaway. ;) The groups primarily carrying out the suicide bombings are Hamas, the newly elected Islamic organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, replacing it with an Islamic theocracy, and Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, another happy-happy-fun-gang of Palestinian peaceniks. :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Vik, there are no Christian bombings in Israel.
OK, I found the link[^]. I got the wrong country, though.
In Lebanon in the 1980s, of those suicide attackers, only eight were Islamic fundamentalists. Twenty-seven were Communists and Socialists. Three were Christians.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobYeah Lebanon used to be a Catholic nation, believe it or not. Unfortunately, after the last 20 some years of civil war, the nation has been hijacked Islamic fundamentalists, and is now strong-armed by the Party of Allah (Hezbollah).
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
e state of Israel and Muslims that don't want Israel to exist.
Even JEWS Don't want Israel to be existed. I hope yo know the difference between zions and real jews.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
Even JEWS Don't want Israel to be existed. I hope yo know the difference between zions and real jews.
That's simply not true, Adnan. I'm a real Jew, and I want Israel to exist. I speak for a vast majority of Jews. There are s tiny minority of anti-semitic Jews who hate the Jewish idea, Jewish principles, and the Jewish state. The world never seems short of dumb people. But don't add yourself to that list by claiming such people represent a majority of Jews. We Jews *want* Israel to exist. Understand? We will fight to keep our independence and freedom from your Islamic theocracy and oppressive dhimmitude.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Virginia Tech Shootings, Guns, and Politics The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
While my views are largely on Tamimi's blather the same as yours, I find this ridiculous:
Shog9 wrote:
They are wicked enough to kill for what they believe in
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, George Washington, and those who opposed Hitler by fighting him were wicked men? :wtf: I think it's honorable to kill for what you believe in, as long as the ones you kill are legitimate targets - a soldier of an occupying nation, a ruthless dictator, and the like. The problem with suicide bombers is that they consider people buying stuff in markets or travelling in buses legitimate targets.
Cheers, Vikram.
"But nowadays, it means nothing. Features are never frozen, development keeps happening, bugs never get fixed, and documentation is something you might find on wikipedia." - Marc Clifton on betas.
Join the CP group at NationStates. Password:
byalmightybobVikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, George Washington, and those who opposed Hitler by fighting him were wicked men?
I never really thought about it that way. Possibly because we don't really talk about it that way. I mean, when's the last time you heard someone say, "democracy survived because it's supporters killed enough people"... I get what you're saying - at some point, it does boil down to killing for your beliefs or being killed for them. But i think there's more to it than just "picking legitimate targets". The people we're talking about aren't killing to protect themselves or their families, no matter how much they might think so. The fact that they are not just willing, but determined to die in the process proves that - kinda hard to say you've protected your beliefs if you're dead. As for Washington... it's not quite apt, but i think there's more to the analogy than i'm willing to get into in this thread. Another day...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Just wanted to come back and say I enjoyed the discussion.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Thanks, me too! I often worry people are going to take comments personally, which is not what I intend; I'm glad you enjoyed it too.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
I hate to say it, but he can't be an atheist if he believes Jesus raped his soul.
I hate to say it, but that's obviously a figurative statement coming from an English major. How could Jesus literally rape his soul? In fact, atheists seem eager to claim that Christianity is responsible for the world's ills, so that's perfectly consistent with atheist dogma.
Its not consistent at all. To be atheist, you'd have to deny Jesus, not blame him.
This statement was never false.