This is why it's a religion bashing thread. Here you are expounding the virtues of a religious person who believes in choice even though it goes against their beliefs. Then why don't you afford this person the same respect and let them back a government in war, knowing that war is not the choice for them "and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too". No one is in the army who didn't knowingly sign up without knowing that there was a chance they could be put in a position to kill..
So you are saying they are willingly sinning to support the govt in this war? And do you think a person should put support for their govt over their religious beliefs? I thought god was supposed to come before all else to a religious person? So then why would they ignore his commandment? How do you voice support it?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is why it's a religion bashing thread. Here you are expounding the virtues of a religious person who believes in choice even though it goes against their beliefs. Then why don't you afford this person the same respect and let them back a government in war, knowing that war is not the choice for them "and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too". No one is in the army who didn't knowingly sign up without knowing that there was a chance they could be put in a position to kill..
I'm not getting it, surferdude. I know if I support killing in any way, I've got the "man upstairs" to answer to. I know how horrific it would be to have to account for my support of killing when I know it's not okay.
Do we stammer and stutter at God's feet and say, well, sorry, but I thought I'd choose otherwise? I really question how religious people plan to justify this to God someday. Can you enlighten me on the subject?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I realize you treat religious and non-religious people equally with respect. I didn't say you were bashing religion but that this whole post is about bashing religious people. How can you commend a person for not voting based on their religious belief when it comes to abortion but then think it's okay for a post to be crerated that slams religious people for doing the same thing when it comes to backing a government in war.
could you plz point out how the original post is 'bashing religion'? i saw it more as asking a question about how they can come to a conclusion of supporting one over the other when they are in direct conflict w/ their religious beliefs. why is it all encompassing of ALL religious ppl to you?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Which administration hasn't needlessly killed to some degree or another? No reason for us to go to mogadishu if i even spelled that right. How many africans did we kill there? 1 would be a needless killing,and we lost how many soldiers in the blackhawk down incident? Most of my issues with all the political things is you cant have both. You cant bash one person or administration or party and support or side with one of the before mention who have participated in the same thing your bashing about.
Oh, and I'd like to clarify that I could be a supportive person to someone at war, although I would not support their choices--I could support them as humans, including the horror they experience.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
could you plz point out how the original post is 'bashing religion'? i saw it more as asking a question about how they can come to a conclusion of supporting one over the other when they are in direct conflict w/ their religious beliefs. why is it all encompassing of ALL religious ppl to you?
I don't get how it is bashing religion at all, either.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
could you plz point out how the original post is 'bashing religion'? i saw it more as asking a question about how they can come to a conclusion of supporting one over the other when they are in direct conflict w/ their religious beliefs. why is it all encompassing of ALL religious ppl to you?
exactly...I'm only asking about those who support wars. And it's not about supporting troops or other peoples choices to support, it's about the ones who supporting and agreeing with the war instead of denouncing it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't get how it is bashing religion at all, either.
Because it is calling out only the actions of religious people, when non-religious people who don't believe in killing support this government and the war.
I can understand calling out all people on their hypocrisy. It is religion bashing when you only call out the religious people. It is the difference between saying "all people can be dumb" and "all women can be dumb". The latter is a sexist statement even though it may be true.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I realize you treat religious and non-religious people equally with respect. I didn't say you were bashing religion but that this whole post is about bashing religious people. How can you commend a person for not voting based on their religious belief when it comes to abortion but then think it's okay for a post to be crerated that slams religious people for doing the same thing when it comes to backing a government in war.
ok. well i guess i didn't actually consider the first post of this thread a condemnation thus i would not think it's ok. i simply viewed it as a means to discussion. and to be fair, the question was in regards to people who are religious AND support the current war....not those who are religious and not supportive. i think maybe for someone who is completely non-religious, and perhaps didn't even grow up with religion - not that i am second-guessing abook's motives, i have no idea...i am just making a seperate hypothesis here - but with no real knowledge of religion beyond what is out on the media...it's a fair inquiry? an honest question? as i said, even my studnets questioned it...thus why our principal addressed the issue...b/c young children are taught the basics of the 10 commandments, and then when they see government sanctioned killing, they don't get it. so to me, perhaps that's where the question stems from? one does not need to assume it's mean to be bashing.
however, you are right in one sense....i was/am commending someone for voting based on what they perceived as the greater good, that of freedom of choice for others to make ytheir own personal decisions based on their own belief system, even if it opposed their own...so sure.....you're saying that one may be religious and still support say a war, that while it's against their personal belief system they can see a greater good in it? am i understanding you correctly?...b/c i don't want to put words in your mouth...i just wanted to recognize where you see the offense in this question posed.
Because it is calling out only the actions of religious people, when non-religious people who don't believe in killing support this government and the war.
I can understand calling out all people on their hypocrisy. It is religion bashing when you only call out the religious people. It is the difference between saying "all people can be dumb" and "all women can be dumb". The latter is a sexist statement even though it may be true.
gotcha now. and sure, you're right. perhaps one may think that if someone is religious though, that they follow a prescribed set of beliefs, that one may wonder how they reconcile such? i would think it was merely genuine curiosity about that to prompt the question...but sure, your idea makes sense.
btw - do you know anything about the 'loophole' thing i mentioned earlier...righteous killing, or whatever...i really am unsure and i AM curious to know what it stems from.
Easy angelic when i see my God, I will tell him there were choices since the day i was born some i am proud of some i am not but i am only one man not perfect and sometimes do make very unwise decisions but I did what i though at the time was best. Would i go back and change them NO. For every mistake there is a valuable lesson learned and I could not be the complete person I am without making the mistakes thus learning the lessons.
Because it is calling out only the actions of religious people, when non-religious people who don't believe in killing support this government and the war.
I can understand calling out all people on their hypocrisy. It is religion bashing when you only call out the religious people. It is the difference between saying "all people can be dumb" and "all women can be dumb". The latter is a sexist statement even though it may be true.
Wait a minute, it's perfectly appropriate to call someone out on anything. What's with you and farfromglorified with that today? Since when is it bashing if you address a valid issue, because you don't address all kinds of other issues people have?
I would like to assert that I hereby reserve the right to address any issue I choose to, and I reject the idea that it is bashing that I don't also call out other people's issues.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Easy angelic when i see my God, I will tell him there were choices since the day i was born some i am proud of some i am not but i am only one man not perfect and sometimes do make very unwise decisions but I did what i though at the time was best. Would i go back and change them NO. For every mistake there is a valuable lesson learned and I could not be the complete person I am without making the mistakes thus learning the lessons.
As you write this, knowing you will have to account for support of killing someday (if you do support it) and you still feel comfortable supporting killing from here on in? Or have you changed your tune and no longer support it?
Thank you for your honest answer though; I respect your bravery at answering.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I would like to assert that I hereby reserve the right to address any issue I choose to, and I reject the idea that it is bashing that I don't also call out other people's issues.
shall that be included in the first draft of the MT charter?
i agree..i think we all can be hyper-sensitive at times, second-guessing motives.....many a question truly IS asked out of genuine curiosity, no agenda. i am not making a judgement call one way or another here...won't second-guess motives......but just sayin'.
If you dont believe in killing and someone was out to kill you and you defended your self and killed the person you are indeed still a killer supporting it with the rest of us. To be honest I was being as neutral as i could and just throwing out scenarios and thought in my previous post. I believe in the ten comandments. Even no other gods before me, as strong moral codes. yep dont be a god ho pick one and stay with em, or none and stay with you are your god. In the end the answer will come out and we'll see who is right and who is getting burned.
I've noticed, though, that this is the second time that Abook has been "called out" today for not addressing the other side of the coin, when frankly, she needs only address what questions she has. I can't speak for her, but I'm a total spiritual believer, and I've had to face the Light and own up to my actions. It has taught me a thing or two about responsibility and I think it's entirely valid to ask why an inconsistency in belief appears to exist..
The first draft of the MT charter sounds good, though.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you dont believe in killing and someone was out to kill you and you defended your self and killed the person you are indeed still a killer supporting it with the rest of us. To be honest I was being as neutral as i could and just throwing out scenarios and thought in my previous post. I believe in the ten comandments. Even no other gods before me, as strong moral codes. yep dont be a god ho pick one and stay with em, or none and stay with you are your god.
Okay, thanks for your honesty now then.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, see, here I have to be fair. As most people here know, I am a person of faith so can appreciate your rhethoric, but, it is, in fact wrong to imply that those without faith would condone killing or be completely without moral code. This is why I don't understand the whole "ten commandments in the courtroom controversy". I can't really see the staunchest of atheists disagreeing with any one of the ten. They're common sense. I believe very strongly in God, but you don't really have to to know that killing and stealing, for example, are wrong.
oh, silly me! shows you how long it's been since i really considered ALL the 10 commandments, and i'll be honest..i don't think i remember all 10. that said...where's the controversy? hows about 'i am one god and you shall have no other gods before me'...or something along those lines. again, i can kinda see why one who is not of a judeo-christian persuasion, forget even those who don't believe in god(s) at all...might have a problem with that. so um, yea....really no place in a government building that is representative of us ALL.
Wait a minute, it's perfectly appropriate to call someone out on anything. What's with you and farfromglorified with that today? Since when is it bashing if you address a valid issue, because you don't address all kinds of other issues people have?
Because it's not addressing the issue. The issue is how can people seemingly vote against there beliefs. It becomes bashing when you make it about a single set of people, when all people do this to one extent or another.
I don't support the war but I do support the idea of the US or any other country being able to make sovereign decisions without UN consent.
A religious person may think gay marriage is wrong, then they shouldn't do it. But they get jumped on for trying to deny this "right" to others. A religious person may belive killing is wrong but now we want to jump on this person for not trying to deny this "right" to others.
I agree with free speach, even though I think spewing hateful bile is wrong. So I will try not to spew hateful bile. I belive killing is wrong so I will try not to kill anyone. Why do I have to try to take away this "right" to kill from others in order to be a good religious person on this board? Why would I then be slammed for trying to take away gay marriage?
It's a no-win situation by some board members. They apply situational ethics to a small group of people while applying completely different standards to themselves and other whose view point they agree with.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm not getting it, surferdude. I know if I support killing in any way, I've got the "man upstairs" to answer to. I know how horrific it would be to have to account for my support of killing when I know it's not okay.
Do we stammer and stutter at God's feet and say, well, sorry, but I thought I'd choose otherwise? I really question how religious people plan to justify this to God someday. Can you enlighten me on the subject?
Yes!!! I'm just wondering how important these decision are when your God would comdemn such acts? Non religious people don't have a god to answer to, they don't have a rule they are going against. I;m wondering when is it ok to disobey your god? Not meaning to bash just wondering how that works, the justification?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because it's not addressing the issue. The issue is how can people seemingly vote against there beliefs. It becomes bashing when you make it about a single set of people, when all people do this to one extent or another.
I don't support the war but I do support the idea of the US or any other country being able to make sovereign decisions without UN consent.
A religious person may think gay marriage is wrong, then they shouldn't do it. But they get jumped on for trying to deny this "right" to others. A religious person may belive killing is wrong but now we want to jump on this person for not trying to deny this "right" to others.
I agree with free speach, even though I think spewing hateful bile is wrong. So I will try not to spew hateful bile. I belive killing is wrong so I will try not to kill anyone. Why do I have to try to take away this "right" to kill from others in order to be a good religious person on this board? Why would I then be slammed for trying to take away gay marriage?
It's a no-win situation by some board members. They apply situational ethics to a small group of people while applying completely different standards to themselves and other whose view point they agree with.
We are talking about the right to kill here. And I'm not talking taking away someone elses rights or believing they should have their own choice, I'm talking about them believing it is right themselves.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We are talking about the right of a government to act as it best sees fit to protect it's citizens. We are talking about a past election when all leaders voted for the war.
Have you implied that a non-religious persons beliefs shift like the wind, or that they feel no real leevl of accountability for their actions?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
We are talking about the right of a government to act as it best sees fit to protect it's citizens. We are talking about a past election when all leaders voted for the war.
Have you implied that a non-religious persons beliefs shift like the wind, or that they feel no real leevl of accountability for their actions?
No, I'm just addressing a certain set of beliefs that are already layed out not different individuals. I wanted to know how some here could back war and be opposed to killing because religious beliefs. Which is supposed to come first?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because it's not addressing the issue. The issue is how can people seemingly vote against there beliefs. It becomes bashing when you make it about a single set of people, when all people do this to one extent or another.
I disagree. We've been discussing in the religion thread how the ideals of religions don't condone killing, and it's humans who distort that. Therefore, specifically, regarding religious people I feel this is an appropriate question.
I don't support the war but I do support the idea of the US or any other country being able to make sovereign decisions without UN consent.
A religious person may think gay marriage is wrong, then they shouldn't do it. But they get jumped on for trying to deny this "right" to others. A religious person may belive killing is wrong but now we want to jump on this person for not trying to deny this "right" to others.
I agree with free speach, even though I think spewing hateful bile is wrong. So I will try not to spew hateful bile. I belive killing is wrong so I will try not to kill anyone. Why do I have to try to take away this "right" to kill from others in order to be a good religious person on this board? Why would I then be slammed for trying to take away gay marriage?
It's a no-win situation by some board members. They apply situational ethics to a small group of people while applying completely different standards to themselves and other whose view point they agree with.
It sounds like you have some answers to Abook's question, but it seems that you are couching your responses in the "bashing" stuff rather than stating them directly. The indirectness has me wondering if it's a difficult question for you to answer rationally.
If Abook was the most hypocritical person on the board, isn't she entitled to ask questions and learn and grow? Or is she expected to be perfect before she's entitled to ask and learn? Since I see exactly where she is coming from on this issue, I personally believe she is being genuine asking, whether she disagrees with the whole religon thing or not.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Through out our lives no matter our beliefs we will indeed violate either a moral code or religous code we believe in. Does that mean you supported the breaking of the code.
Have you implied that a non-religious persons beliefs shift like the wind, or that they feel no real leevl of accountability for their actions?
I can't speak for her, but for myself, I wonder how people rationalise such decisions for themselves. I see a disconnect with some religious people, where church is for sunday and the rest of the week, it's about the "real world". They are not integrated with their own "chosen" spirituality. I've seen it--people are not willing to stand up to God at the risk of human death. They will fight for their small human lives at the expense of their okayness with their deepest ideals. I would say they fight for their small human lives at the expense of everlasting life, but I know we already have everlasting life, when we're ready to accept it. edit: I mean we are eternal already, when we decide to acknowledge that fact. We don't "win" or "earn" what we are in each moment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If Abook was the most hypocritical person on the board, isn't she entitled to ask questions and learn and grow? Or is she expected to be perfect before she's entitled to ask and learn? Since I see exactly where she is coming from on this issue, I personally believe she is being genuine asking, whether she disagrees with the whole religon thing or not.
I don't think it is heartfelt on abook's part. She's never come out and asked how can a religious person back gay marriage or abortion? The truth is, and I've said it in this thread, is that religious people are just as hypocritical as any other person. Having faith or belief in no ways makes you a superior human being. We face the same tough choices everyone else does, make mistakes in applying our faith and beliefs to actions. We try our best and fail every single day. Just like you, just like abook. Abook is really asking religious people how they justify being human. How the hell do you answer that?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I can't speak for her, but for myself, I wonder how people rationalise such decisions for themselves. I see a disconnect with some religious people, where church is for sunday and the rest of the week, it's about the "real world". They are not integrated with their own "chosen" spirituality. I've seen it--people are not willing to stand up to God at the risk of human death. They will fight for their small human lives at the expense of their okayness with their deepest ideals. I would say they fight for their small human lives at the expense of everlasting life, but I know we already have everlasting life, when we're ready to accept it. edit: I mean we are eternal already, when we decide to acknowledge that fact. We don't "win" or "earn" what we are in each moment.
Thank you Angelica for stating much clearer than I could. To religious people god is supposed to come before all else.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't think it is heartfelt on abook's part. She's never come out and asked how can a religious person back gay marriage or abortion? The truth is, and I've said it in this thread, is that religious people are just as hypocritical as any other person. Having faith or belief in no ways makes you a superior human being. We face the same tough choices everyone else does, make mistakes in applying our faith and beliefs to actions. We try our best and fail every single day. Just like you, just like abook. Abook is really asking religious people how they justify being human. How the hell do you answer that?
I'm saying that to be religious aren't you supposed to actually follow these beliefs. Can you say you are christian but not follow the christian beliefs. I can't say I'm a vegan and eat meat.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't think it is heartfelt on abook's part. She's never come out and asked how can a religious person back gay marriage or abortion? The truth is, and I've said it in this thread, is that religious people are just as hypocritical as any other person. Having faith or belief in no ways makes you a superior human being. We face the same tough choices everyone else does, make mistakes in applying our faith and beliefs to actions. We try our best and fail every single day. Just like you, just like abook. Abook is really asking religious people how they justify being human. How the hell do you answer that?
It's a fair question, though, even if that is what she is asking. That's what I'm asking! I asked the same one the other day of 69charger and binauralsounds in the "myspace page" thread. The thread was so ludicrous and juvenile, I was asking because I knew in advance there was no justification for what is not justifiable..
And I ask for the same reason here. If people are uncomfortable facing the idea of God's judgment now, to Abook, imagine answering it in the Light of God and all knowledge. I've had to do that before and I've cowered at some of my own actions. I've been humbled to my knees and in tears begging for forgiveness when recognising parts of myself that had gotten so far away from what I truly am as a spark of God. It's a lot easier to focus on Abook's untoward questions isn't it?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
So you are saying they are willingly sinning to support the govt in this war? And do you think a person should put support for their govt over their religious beliefs? I thought god was supposed to come before all else to a religious person? So then why would they ignore his commandment? How do you voice support it?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do we stammer and stutter at God's feet and say, well, sorry, but I thought I'd choose otherwise? I really question how religious people plan to justify this to God someday. Can you enlighten me on the subject?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
could you plz point out how the original post is 'bashing religion'? i saw it more as asking a question about how they can come to a conclusion of supporting one over the other when they are in direct conflict w/ their religious beliefs. why is it all encompassing of ALL religious ppl to you?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
exactly...I'm only asking about those who support wars. And it's not about supporting troops or other peoples choices to support, it's about the ones who supporting and agreeing with the war instead of denouncing it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I can understand calling out all people on their hypocrisy. It is religion bashing when you only call out the religious people. It is the difference between saying "all people can be dumb" and "all women can be dumb". The latter is a sexist statement even though it may be true.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
ok. well i guess i didn't actually consider the first post of this thread a condemnation thus i would not think it's ok. i simply viewed it as a means to discussion. and to be fair, the question was in regards to people who are religious AND support the current war....not those who are religious and not supportive. i think maybe for someone who is completely non-religious, and perhaps didn't even grow up with religion - not that i am second-guessing abook's motives, i have no idea...i am just making a seperate hypothesis here - but with no real knowledge of religion beyond what is out on the media...it's a fair inquiry? an honest question? as i said, even my studnets questioned it...thus why our principal addressed the issue...b/c young children are taught the basics of the 10 commandments, and then when they see government sanctioned killing, they don't get it. so to me, perhaps that's where the question stems from? one does not need to assume it's mean to be bashing.
however, you are right in one sense....i was/am commending someone for voting based on what they perceived as the greater good, that of freedom of choice for others to make ytheir own personal decisions based on their own belief system, even if it opposed their own...so sure.....you're saying that one may be religious and still support say a war, that while it's against their personal belief system they can see a greater good in it? am i understanding you correctly?...b/c i don't want to put words in your mouth...i just wanted to recognize where you see the offense in this question posed.
gotcha now.
btw - do you know anything about the 'loophole' thing i mentioned earlier...righteous killing, or whatever...i really am unsure and i AM curious to know what it stems from.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I would like to assert that I hereby reserve the right to address any issue I choose to, and I reject the idea that it is bashing that I don't also call out other people's issues.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Thank you for your honest answer though; I respect your bravery at answering.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
shall that be included in the first draft of the MT charter?
i agree..i think we all can be hyper-sensitive at times, second-guessing motives.....many a question truly IS asked out of genuine curiosity, no agenda. i am not making a judgement call one way or another here...won't second-guess motives......but just sayin'.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The first draft of the MT charter sounds good, though.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
oh, silly me! shows you how long it's been since i really considered ALL the 10 commandments, and i'll be honest..i don't think i remember all 10.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I don't support the war but I do support the idea of the US or any other country being able to make sovereign decisions without UN consent.
A religious person may think gay marriage is wrong, then they shouldn't do it. But they get jumped on for trying to deny this "right" to others. A religious person may belive killing is wrong but now we want to jump on this person for not trying to deny this "right" to others.
I agree with free speach, even though I think spewing hateful bile is wrong. So I will try not to spew hateful bile. I belive killing is wrong so I will try not to kill anyone. Why do I have to try to take away this "right" to kill from others in order to be a good religious person on this board? Why would I then be slammed for trying to take away gay marriage?
It's a no-win situation by some board members. They apply situational ethics to a small group of people while applying completely different standards to themselves and other whose view point they agree with.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes!!! I'm just wondering how important these decision are when your God would comdemn such acts? Non religious people don't have a god to answer to, they don't have a rule they are going against. I;m wondering when is it ok to disobey your god? Not meaning to bash just wondering how that works, the justification?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
We are talking about the right to kill here. And I'm not talking taking away someone elses rights or believing they should have their own choice, I'm talking about them believing it is right themselves.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Have you implied that a non-religious persons beliefs shift like the wind, or that they feel no real leevl of accountability for their actions?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No, I'm just addressing a certain set of beliefs that are already layed out not different individuals. I wanted to know how some here could back war and be opposed to killing because religious beliefs. Which is supposed to come first?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
It sounds like you have some answers to Abook's question, but it seems that you are couching your responses in the "bashing" stuff rather than stating them directly. The indirectness has me wondering if it's a difficult question for you to answer rationally.
If Abook was the most hypocritical person on the board, isn't she entitled to ask questions and learn and grow? Or is she expected to be perfect before she's entitled to ask and learn? Since I see exactly where she is coming from on this issue, I personally believe she is being genuine asking, whether she disagrees with the whole religon thing or not.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can't speak for her, but for myself, I wonder how people rationalise such decisions for themselves. I see a disconnect with some religious people, where church is for sunday and the rest of the week, it's about the "real world". They are not integrated with their own "chosen" spirituality. I've seen it--people are not willing to stand up to God at the risk of human death. They will fight for their small human lives at the expense of their okayness with their deepest ideals. I would say they fight for their small human lives at the expense of everlasting life, but I know we already have everlasting life, when we're ready to accept it. edit: I mean we are eternal already, when we decide to acknowledge that fact. We don't "win" or "earn" what we are in each moment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Thank you Angelica for stating much clearer than I could. To religious people god is supposed to come before all else.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm saying that to be religious aren't you supposed to actually follow these beliefs. Can you say you are christian but not follow the christian beliefs. I can't say I'm a vegan and eat meat.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
And I ask for the same reason here. If people are uncomfortable facing the idea of God's judgment now, to Abook, imagine answering it in the Light of God and all knowledge. I've had to do that before and I've cowered at some of my own actions. I've been humbled to my knees and in tears begging for forgiveness when recognising parts of myself that had gotten so far away from what I truly am as a spark of God. It's a lot easier to focus on Abook's untoward questions isn't it?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!