Inspired from the religon thread

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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.

angelica · July 2006

messymarv wrote:

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.

decides2dream · July 2006

angelica wrote:

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'.

messymarv · July 2006

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.

angelica · July 2006

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.

angelica · July 2006

messymarv wrote:

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.

decides2dream · July 2006

cornnifer wrote:

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.

surferdude · July 2006

angelica wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

angelica wrote:

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?

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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.

surferdude · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

We are talking about the right to kill here.

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?

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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?

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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.

messymarv · July 2006

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.

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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.

surferdude · July 2006

angelica wrote:

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?

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

angelica wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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.

surferdude · July 2006

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

To religious people god is supposed to come before all else.

And to a non-religious person their personal beliefs are supposed to come before all else, or they aren't beliefs.

angelica · July 2006

surferdude wrote:

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?

Inspired from the religon thread

Comments

Categories