| 361 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by lifesbrink
A few notes to your post and then I am concluding, as I feel this conversation is coming to a close. 1. Drinking 2. Christianity and sex 3. Proper teaching The drinking age may have come into being because of statistics, but that doesn't negate most people's views on it. And those views are akin to ethics. I was never saying it was very important, merely giving an example. If you ask many people if it is wrong or right to drink under the age of 21 in the US, you will get varied views, because people have different beliefs in it. These beliefs constitute a small portion of their morals. That is all I admit, I should have been more clear in my earlier post, as I mispresented the idea that I meant all of Christianity. I recognize that the religion has many different sects and beyond that, many different beliefs involved in terms of morals and views, which is why I should have specified that it is the Catholic church that has its views of sex that I dislike. You restated a few of those, and while you and any one like you are entitled to believe that about sex, as long as you do no infringe on others' rights to do with sex as they please, there are no problems I see. The thing is, many people do infringe, or try to. As for true Christianity, can you really say you know what that is? Other than the belief in God and Jesus as the savior, I don't think any Christian can lay claim to the very essence of the religion, nor should they. But, again, no real big deal. Finally, I should have been more clear on proper teaching, as I was not referring to morals, but the ability to adapt in this world. Another way to put it would be to teach someone all the practical aspects of how to live, rather than the opinion-based ideas. You are right, morals can not be taught. They merely can be an influence that someone takes upon themselves. I remember the other day a girl telling me she was against abortion because of pictures she saw. Some part of her revolted at the pics, and hence led her to have a stance. At any rate, this conversation for my part is over. I was never arguing to change you, if you thought that, I guess you can think otherwise. I argue on here merely for the point of practice. Discussions of these kinds are always a good way of keeping the brain in good working order, and I can see you are a reasonable person to argue with. I do hope you realize that although I do not have concrete views on morals, I still live in a way that promotes the happiness of others, and always try to help people when I can. As an agnostic, I do not do this for some greater good, but mainly because helping makes me feel good, something that was programmed into me from an early age, and one of the few parts of myself I kept when I reworked my entire personality, as I saw it as a benefit to living. Could it be an instinct? A higher purpose? Something else? I don't worry about these things, I just do, and live. I also hope you got a bit out of this as well, and I look forward to other discussions of things with you on this forum, as I am rather enjoying this forum quite a bit. There are some neat people here! Have a good day, and you can feel free to respond to this post if you want, but my involvement with this thread is over!
In that I am a firm believer that God has given each of us a unique measure of Truth to share with others, I come here to hear what people have to say. When I disagree, I test those disagree with, and always look forward to being changed. If not, I am equally fine with the simple sharing of water and thoughts with others. I am thankful you have given me an opportunity to see a small part of whatever piece of the truth you hold. I really don't find myself disagreeing with you; nl, rather I find myself interested in how you see it, and see similar things somewhat differently. I guess you could say my view contains yours. Now as to the "true Christianity," my point was I and no one can lay claim to that creature known as "true Christianity," but when going after something that some Christians do, it is wise not to say, "Christians do this..." or "Christians believe this..." because other than a few things, they don't agree on those things. |
|
Originally posted by Elikal
I don't have a religion or any spiritual beliefs. But I do believe in making the world a better place for everyone and THAT is something greater than myself. If many religious people would focus on doing the same instead of bickering with each other and anyone else that doesn't share their views, the world would already be a better place. :)
|
|
|
FilipinoFury
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 3/25/04
A guy at work bought a car out of the paper. Ten years later, Bam! Herpes. |
Originally posted by Dekron What he doesn't quite understand is atheism is a rejection of religion, not a disproval of religion. By the devotion he shows to disprove religion, he is simply creating a branch of religious atheism that he, himself, follows.
First off, not trying to start a debate or argument just asking a question. I don't see how one creates a religion by the rejection of religion. Saying "I don't believe you." isn't a religion, it would be like saying "not collecting rocks is a hobby." Clearly this isn't true. It's not a belief system, it's a single position on one issue, there is no dogma, no tenants, and nothing that says an atheist will agree with another atheist on anything else other then the exsistence of god. Everything else is up for debate. If i've gone wrong somewhere, which I probably am since im in the dark about most things having to do with religion...please explain.
|
Originally posted by Fishermage
In that I am a firm believer that God has given each of us a unique measure of Truth to share with others, I come here to hear what people have to say. When I disagree, I test those disagree with, and always look forward to being changed.
That bears quite a alot of truth as far as I am concerned. If we each didn't have some sort of unique truth in us then why would God even be allowing us to exist right now? If we don't then this is all just an entertainment and a playhouse , which is perfectly fine but still doesn't quite add up in making entire sense of this earth. Like why would he only create the one planet and smush everyone together on it and have the rest of a truely massive universe empty? What would really be stopping God from creating other planets with life that is more blissfull / unique to ours? That's not to say they don't exist but if this is a drama and God created differences out of boredom I don't see how one earth can entertain him for hundreds of thousand sof years. |
|
|
all things on this earth are flawed. due to this point, we always demand |
|
|
RetroMonster
 Novice Member
Joined: 2/26/09
The World Is Going To Hell and I'm Taking The Bus. |
Oh my gosh, this has gone far enough people. |
Originally posted by RetroMonster
It's just beginning. I think everyone is trying to keep it civil in here and discuss and learn things from each other , that was really the purpose of my thread was to invoke enlightening discussions , although it may not have appeared that way from the beggining of the thread ^__^ |
|
|
religion is created by human, human are flawed so the religions are flawed as well. |
|
Originally posted by darklil
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well. The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators'). Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue). |
|
Originally posted by ianonmmorpg
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well. The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators'). Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
|
|
Originally posted by ianonmmorpg
Science is created by humans, humans are flawed and so their science is flawed as well. The difference is that science does 'by definition', evolve, improving at each step; religions are typically rooted in tradition and doctrine and therefore find it much harder to do so, and when they do many of them are simply undermining their primary claims of being the word of god. With each evolution they move away from that word, or at least focus on an aspect of that word and place greater importance upon it as it suits the socio-political climate of the day (and the position of its 'creators'). Why cant we just have a list of "nice goals" and "possible explainations for things that we dont (or cant) know", lists and explainations can be modified and dont need to hold us back or start arguements about the validity of conflicting views. I dont mind arguements, its just that religion has a tendancy to result in arguements that people feel so strongly about (and typically cant prove to one another) that blood is spilt. Sure I've had many a heated debate about conflicting scientific theories, but I'm not aware of any wars having broken out over it, we tend to simply accept that time will tell. Most religious arguements cannot be resolved by proof they are articles of faith, and from faith comes zealotry (no not always, but often enough to be an issue).
Like said above, at least science evolves with us and allows change. The main religions of the world that I have researched thus far lead back to "Stories" and "Myths", so I would rather believe in something with logical explanations than something that makes you rely on things that can not be physically sensed.
|
|
.gif){kind=small}
