And what religion should you be?

[Mr. Personality]

If I put up a thread that was a disrepectful and degrading to Gays as this one is to religion, I would be instantly attacked, vilified, accussed of instilling hate and probably be shut down by the liberal moderators.

There's some big differences between religion and gayness.

Religion causes harm, supposably gayness does not.
Religion is a choice, supposably gayness is not.

If something causes harm, I have no problem with insulting it. If something does not cause harm, I try not to insult it.

1 - Religion causes harm the same way money causes harm. It's not the belief, it's the manner in which people twist it.
2 - SUPPOSEDLY. For the love of god or gay it's SUPPOSEDLY.

[steven lloyd]

1 - Religion causes harm the same way money causes harm. It's not the belief, it's the manner in which people twist it.

I used to believe that as well. Thanks to the posts of John Right, however, I'm really starting to question that presumption. It seems religion might have even a greater detrimental effect than money has the potential for as it (religion) has the propensity to not only twist the thinking of an individual, but to encourage that individual to go out and attempt to twist the thinking of others.

[kgcayenne]

Coffebreak, those are minor details and not important. What is important is that they all agree on the principal doctrine of Christianity. It's like Ford vs Toyota, they're both cars, they just get you from point A to B in a slightly different manner.

I wouldn't exactly say that's something agreed upon at all! So I ask: On whose doctrine are you basing that statement?

No answer yet?

[Mr. Personality]

1 - Religion causes harm the same way money causes harm. It's not the belief, it's the manner in which people twist it.

I used to believe that as well. Thanks to the posts of John Right, however, I'm really starting to question that presumption. It seems religion might have even a greater detrimental effect than money has the potential for as it (religion) has the propensity to not only twist the thinking of an individual, but to encourage that individual to go out and attempt to twist the thinking of others.

That's not 'religion' though. That is the people in charge of the individual religions. You're basically saying something along the lines of "Guns kill, it has nothing to do with the person pulling the trigger."
Religion is benign is a bunch of people who believe the same thing. The problem lays in who is in charge and who they are teaching.

Also, I think we're all aware of what you think of that one particular poster and what he says.

[steven lloyd]

Religion is benign is a bunch of people who believe the same thing.

I'd like to believe that, and except for the obvious exceptions (fundamentalist extremism) I used to believe that. Look what's it's producing right here in Canada though. You think only I notice?

[Mr. Personality]

Religion is benign is a bunch of people who believe the same thing.

I'd like to believe that, and except for the obvious exceptions (fundamentalist extremism) I used to believe that. Look what's it's producing right here in Canada though. You think only I notice?

Is the religion producing it, or the people in charge of those religions?

[steven lloyd]

Is the religion producing it, or the people in charge of those religions?

Well, unlike spirituality, religion is a social ( ie. not individual ) construct. In other words, religion is people made. So yes, we can blame the people in charge of the religions, but what about those who constructed it ( to serve their purpose ) and those who continue to blindly ( without challenge ) follow and adhere to outdated mores and principles ( ie. the social construct, religion ) ?

Another thought, ignorance of a crime does not absolve us of the responsibility for committing that crime. Should we allow it ( ignorance ) to absolve us of the responsibility for being unfairly judgmental and disparaging or promoting hate and intolerance ?

[Mr. Personality]

Is the religion producing it, or the people in charge of those religions?

Well, unlike spirituality, religion is a social ( ie. not individual ) construct. In other words, religion is people made. So yes, we can blame the people in charge of the religions, but what about those who constructed it ( to serve their purpose ) and those who continue to blindly ( without challenge ) follow and adhere to outdated mores and principles ( ie. the social construct, religion ) ?

Another thought, ignorance of a crime does not absolve us of the responsibility for committing that crime. Should we allow it ( ignorance ) to absolve us of the responsibility for being unfairly judgmental and disparaging or promoting hate and intolerance ?

So if a business changes hands and the new owner starts ripping people off, is the business to blame, or the new owner?

[steven lloyd]

So if a business changes hands and the new owner starts ripping people off, is the business to blame, or the new owner?

I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split here. Isn't the business an extension of the owner? So in other words, now that the new owner is using his new business to rip people off, isn’t it still the business that is ripping people off? It’s not like the business is separate from the owner. Much like religion. Again - religion is a social construct. It is the people (not God) that make religion.

[Glacier]

Coffebreak, those are minor details and not important. What is important is that they all agree on the principal doctrine of Christianity. It's like Ford vs Toyota, they're both cars, they just get you from point A to B in a slightly different manner.

I wouldn't exactly say that's something agreed upon at all! So I ask: On whose doctrine are you basing that statement?

* interrupts*

I wouldn't say they all agree on that either - even within the same 'denomination'. For example, I have met Lutherans in the Okanagan who are very traditional and conservative in their beliefs (using condoms is a sin, women cannot be pastors, etc...), but other Lutherans are very liberal. My wife's female cousin is an ordained Lutheran pastor (recently married an atheist philosopher), and her beliefs about Jesus are closer to her atheist husband than her more conservative Lutheran family. her beliefs are more agnostic than anything.

Okay, John Right's turn...

[my2rotties]

I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split here. Isn't the business an extension of the owner? So in other words, now that the new owner is using his new business to rip people off, isn’t it still the business that is ripping people off? It’s not like the business is separate from the owner. Much like religion. Again - religion is a social construct. It is the people (not God) that make religion.

Thanks for conveying exactly what I was thinking... just in better words and structure as per usual.

[Mr. Personality]

So if a business changes hands and the new owner starts ripping people off, is the business to blame, or the new owner?

I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split here. Isn't the business an extension of the owner? So in other words, now that the new owner is using his new business to rip people off, isn’t it still the business that is ripping people off? It’s not like the business is separate from the owner. Much like religion. Again - religion is a social construct. It is the people (not God) that make religion.

Is it the fact that they're organized, or who is doing the organizing is my question.

[steven lloyd]

Is it the fact that they're organized, or who is doing the organizing is my question.

Again, I still don’t know what you’re trying to get at. Many groups or organizations are organized, and they are a reflection or extension of not only who organized them, but also of who continues to participate in and thus validate the organization. What are you trying to imply or suggest in such an indirect and vague manner? Are you asking me if I think the idea of people participating in religion is in itself is a bad idea? If so then I would tell you that up until recently I would have said no. Given certain recent posts I have really started to question that opinion though. Is that what you're asking or do you have some other idea or hypothesis you can just lay out on the table here?

[Mr. Personality]

Is it the fact that they're organized, or who is doing the organizing is my question.

Again, I still don’t know what you’re trying to get at. Many groups or organizations are organized, and they are a reflection or extension of not only who organized them, but also of who continues to participate in and thus validate the organization. What are you trying to imply or suggest in such an indirect and vague manner? Are you asking me if I think the idea of people participating in religion is in itself is a bad idea? If so then I would tell you that up until recently I would have said no. Given certain recent posts I have really started to question that opinion though. Is that what you're asking or do you have some other idea or hypothesis you can just lay out on the table here?

I'm asking if you think a group of people getting together to discuss, learn and teach is a bad idea? That is all "religion" really is.
Like I said before, to say "religion is bad" is like saying "Guns are bad". They aren't, the person behind the gun is bad (if he kills someone) the people behind religion are bad.

[kgcayenne]

Misinformation, misapplication, and manipulation are things mankind does in relation to the Bible.