Christianity

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Eàmanë, Aug 9, 2003.

  1. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,605
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +254 / 0 / -0
    Tur and Screensurfer, you're both too deep in thought to answer this correctly:
    This is a thread about Christianity, that's why.
    In a thread about Hinduism, we could all nag about that.
    Simple ;)


    I believe that is a statistic you just made up?!
    Maybe our countries are too different, but every priest I met says he believes. Sure, tehre are those who claim to know - but there are as many 'believers' who know that God exists as there are atheists who know that God doesn't exist.


    See above for that. If we take the average Christian and the average atheist, they both believe. So both have a positive truth value - and my choice of words (claim) before was wrong.


    We are born with religion as we are born with our language. It's not genetically programmed, but we normally grow up with one view of the world and one native language. And as we grow older, we can learn more languages, change our believes - but the original language, the original belief, still shaped us in a way. We can get rid of it, never speak the language again, don't believe in that religion anymore, but the knowledge about it is still there.
    And 'of course' religion is something people change (like a haircut). We decide what to believe. And if you chose not to believe in anything other than what you see and what is already proven, then you just made a different decision than the lad that sits beside you and prays. But both decisions have the same value. And they're both about religion. Wether to believe or not.



    It's about the same scale I had. I can really not see such a huge diference.

    There are extremists on both sides. But I really don't think most religious people in the US are strong atheists. That would be kinda scary. As scary as strong atheists would be, btw.
    Well, over here I guess most would say they're weak theists, or agnostics.



    As sorry as I am to say this: Foinikas is not the ultimate representative of Christianity. Don't judge an entire religion based on one guy you met online.

    The bible is but a book. And it can be read many different ways. It's not the words in there that define who we are, but the way people understand and use these words. There are those who read 'help your neighbour' and who place an emphasis on that part of the book.
    And there are those who read 'tremple down thy enemy' and think that that is the ultimate message the book has.

    The bible is a book, as is the quran, as is the tanakh... They don't speak, they don't tell you what to think, they open up possibilities and people define themselves by chosing what to take from it and what not to.

    What kind of sick and despicable morals are you talking about?
    I for once was never taught that gays are evil. And I too, just as Foi, grew up Christian. Maybe then it's not so much the religion that makes me different from Foi, but probably the cultural background and personal choice, does it not?
     
  2. Kakashi

    Kakashi Call me Deacon Blues

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    17,530
    Likes Received:
    419
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Can't Find My Way Home
    Ratings:
    +738 / 7 / -2
    I can't believe this is still going on.
     
  3. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    That's a false disjunction. You can be an advocate of atheism as well as an anti-religion activist.

    wat

    Your view of the world is a little too skewed from the norm for me to debate with you without having to ask you to clarify your opinion in each response :p. I will agree with you that these people, who are religious, generally do not understand their own ideology or philosophy in general. It's just sad that the vast majority of the members of Christianity (In America, at least) fall under their umbrella. Would you say the average religious person has a modest viewpoint, or that they're more like wandering and foinikas?


    What's your criteria for a religious professional?

    Certainly. Going by English, a claim is a statement with a positive truth value. If Running Wolf meant something different, all that's needed is some clarification, and we make an agreement.

    You must not include America into the western world. America is the place where atheist are the least trusted minority in the country. In natural language, "believe" and "know" are interchangable words. For example, friends of mine KNOW god exist, yet they say believe:

    This is almost universal among all the wall post that ask "do you believe in God?" Look up the movie Religulous by Bill Maher. He touches a lot of American society. Here's some other stuff that isn't exactly abnormal: .

    Look up Thundef00t and AronRa on Youtube. They have entire series where they deal with people like this.

    What you deal with in Europe is not what I deal with in America.

    What about his opinion deserves respect? Why should respect be arbitrarily given? I never understood this about apologist. It's nothing more than style over substance. If you really want my respect, try to justify imprisoning people for their harmless lifestyle.

    Do you respect his opinion that homosexuals should be arrested?

    I think you're just an apologist. If you've gone to a university and gained an education, you are smarter than most people in certain areas. You might not know essential life skills that others don't know, but you know more about certain fields of study than others. Being to be humble about it is just a farce.


    The atheist spokesman statistic? This is a number I made up, yes, but I would say it's 100% among all the spokesman I've actually read into. They always leave room for the possibility that they're wrong.

    That is wrong just by pure population margin, at least in the U.S. which only has 1 atheist among every 75 Christians.

    People are not born with language or religion. Both of those are forced upon the child by the parents. Wild childs have no concept of language or religion.

    This one is more in depth.

    The ****? I said they were strong theist, and as somebody who has watched hours of video on religious indoctrination of children, religious politicians screaming about the lord guiding their public policy (if they're not Christian they're almost guaranteed not to have a huge vote), and religious people who discriminate against those who don't follow their worldview. Gay marriage is still illegal in the majority of the states, California just had a proposition that recinded Gay marriage, and majority of biology teachers don't even teach evolution accurately because it conflicts with their bible toted view of creation.

    Yeah...I'm sure strong atheist would be bad when they're in office. I would hate it if they pushed their non-existent dogma onto those who don't believe in it.

    The entire book of leviticus is full of teachings I detest. It's in your scripture. Also, you have strawmanned my argument if you think I was generalizing my view of Foinikas to the entirety of Christianity.

    I'm not against you jumping into a discussion that isn't yours but when you do it can you not change my entire point in order for you to knock it down?
    "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
    -Deuteronomy 22:20-21: "

    "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
    -1 Corinthians 14:34"

    "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
    -1 Timothy 2:11"

    "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
    -Deuteronomy 25:11"

    "Homosexual acts are an abomination to God.
    -Leviticus 18:22"

    "If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.
    -Leviticus 20:13"

    This is just the code of ethics it says you should live by. If I tried to categorize all the immoral shit God and other people do in the Bible, I would go nuts.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011
  4. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    Something else I just noticed.

    So you're picking and choosing what you consider to be "the gospel", the "word of God", etc., when it all comes from the same source? Why would you live yourself by one part of the bible and not the other? The only thing I can think of is that there is another motivating force apart from the Bible that makes you discriminate against the evil parts and accept the good parts. If that is indeed the case, which I bet it is, then why not just drop the entire Bible and live by the force that motivates you to choose the good parts of it? Otherwise you can't expect me to consider you to be an honest Christian if you only decide to follow the bible when it suits you.
     
  5. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,208
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +319 / 2 / -0
    Well, I have to amend that. They might be religious but, naturally, not believers.

    However, most are not confronted with doubt on a daily basis. It's not very hard, given the occasion, to do exactly that. And most people, even Americans, will admit that there is an element of uncertainty involved. Inquiry might be something like this;

    > So you're a Christian [of denomination]?
    < Yes, very!
    > You're absolutely sure about Christianity, aren't you?
    < HE is god and Jesus is his prophet! (Interreligious joke, sorry)
    > How about your parents? Are they Christian?
    < Oh, yes. Very.
    > Of the same denomination?
    < uhuh
    > Well, that's a coincidence. That your parents are right about religion, and you are as well? What are the odds?
    < Well, they have the duty to teach their children in the one and only religion. (or something random)

    > Right. Well that's pretty relative...

    And this is the point where you tell a story about some kid you know. Let's call him Lars. Lars was introduced into religion by his parents and is adamant about being right as well. You might add that his full name is Lars Al Yasin and that he is a devout Muslim. Then, you can introduce the question whether one might follow a certain religion because they have been taught so by their parents. Your friend might argue that Lars is wrong, because he's not a Christian. But you can easily show that that knife cuts both ways, although, you can concede that at least either must be wrong. You might even argue that, given the predisposition for religion, he/she might have been a Muslim should he/she have born in the Middle East.

    Then ask whether there is an element of doubt involved in religion. Most will agree, be it reluctantly. Some will argue about miracles, or how God has shown himself to him(/her). A few will maintain stubborn and maintain that Lars is wrong regardless. Some of these, however, might actually return to you and say there's an element of truth in your story. The rest might be religious - but not a believer. As far as they don't have any doubt in private regardless of what they say. However, their numbers are very few indeed.

    Somewhere in the annals of the Debate thread I had one of these conversations with Foinikas. If I remember correctly, we couldn't quite agree. Still, he did concede he might have been a Muslim had he been born elsewhere if memory serves correct.

    Any member of the public who has some degree in theology, be it connected to a religion or not.

    Yes. I do respect that opinion.

    Let me start out by saying that he believes he's right. Just as you think you are. Without having debate, neither opinion is superior. And, as far as Christians go, I do think that the Bible gives enough substance to actually ban homosexuality from public life. Regardless, no one can convince me that a theocracy, which is needed for such a measure, is a very good idea. And, hence, we wouldn't agree. We would have a difference of opinion.

    That doesn't mean I don't respect it.

    This is just repressive. This is a very degenerative way of thinking. You claim superiority to your fellow humans. This is how the Germans thought - no offense meant, RW. You know what I mean.

    Although you might have had the pleasure of a good education, that doesn't mean that the opinion that you have must be valued above anyone else's. We live in a liberal democracy. Every person, every opinion counts equally. Should people simply forfeit their opinion when someone claims superiority based on a master's degree? Is that the free world you want to live in? Would you have agreed with yourself had you lacked the brain capacity to go to university? Should people without a university degree be stripped from their right to vote? Is that what you are saying?
     
  6. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,605
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +254 / 0 / -0
    So all the things you say about Christianity only hold true for American christianity? Did I get that right?


    You need to notice the difference between respect and agreement. It's not the same.
    Foi is a human, as such he deserves respect.
    And he deserves to have his own oppinion, as much as I dislike and disagree with it sometimes.
    Respect is a ground rule for a civilized discussion.
    In fact, respecting each other is a ground rule for living together. It makes society possible.

    And so do the christians I know.

    According to Wikipedia over here it's about 1/3 atheist, 1/3 roman catholics and 1/3 protestants. And it's peaceful.

    And are wild childs better off without language or religion. And have you ever met a wild child? Language and religion are culture formers. They made our past, the good and the bad parts.
    The point remains, that kids who grow up in society (as about 99% of all children do) grow up breathe in relgion and language with every breath they take.


    it's called a typo, no need to freak out.

    Scary indeed.



    Well, but it really sounds as if you're doing just that. It sounds as if in your oppinion, Christians are bad, evil people who seek to destroy the world or whatever. But they're not. Not all of them anyways.
    Europe is pretty much 98% christian. And here they do teach evolution and gay people do have rights (maybe not in greece, but elsewhere) and the only religious politician I know of reminds me strongly of Hitler, who, in the beginning, also took religion as a cover and later threw it off.

    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - Man called Jesus (McJ)

    “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” -McJ

    "Love others as well as you love yourself.” - McJ

    ...

    1. Notice how the bible totally contradicts itself? How am I supposed to deal with that if I don't pick just chose which stuff to believe in and what to leave out? I can't do both, I can't love gay people as I love myself AND kill them. That would also mean I'd like them to kill me too. AND I would have to be without 'sin'. As far as I can see, that wouldn't be working so well. So I have to chose.

    2. I was told that Christianity puts the emphasis on the new testament and Jesus. And sure, you can find dumb, old rules in those texts too, but there IS a reason for that:
    Religion always adapts itself to the society. Because it is made by society.
    Now Imagine, year 30 AD, somewhere down in Israel under the rule of the romans some guy comes walking along and preaches that women are just as awesome as men. Probably a bit smarter. Not so strong, but still pretty awesome.
    a) where should he have gotten that thought from? He certainly didn't see something like that in his surroundings
    b) folks would have said he was nutters. Even the women.
    => Definitly not gonna happen.
    One man can't change the world in a second. Society has to change and that only changes slowly.
    So the point here: The quotes about women you had: Zeitgeist. That was the law of the time when they wrote down all of that stuff. If Jesus 2.0 appeared tomorrow and someone wrote down his preachings, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find anything like that in there, later on.

    So I don't know why some christians still 'believe' in those 'laws'. I mean they're not running around in sandals and old white togas, herding their sheep and living in sheds, are they? We have evolved.


    Do I?

    For reasons I stated above: Some are more 'devine' than others: Some are laws of society, and some is well meant advise that helps dealing with life better. I usually pick the latter one.

    That motivating force you talk about is entirely built upon christian values that this society has.
    "The dignity of men is unimpeachable." - that basic right, basic law, the first article of our "constitution", is totally a christian value.
    That's what I am trying to say with the "language and religion" stuff: they formed this society, they made us who we (as a whole) are.
    The values I live by are first of all based in the bible. That however does NOT mean that I do have to take the rest of written text in there as truth as well.
    ItÄs just the foundation of my personal values. Why deny it?


    XD
    Who ever said I was an honest Christian?

    I said I grew up christian, that I did.

    But to find me stating that I am truly and undoubtfully Christian, you'll have to search these "God" and "Christianity" threads to find posts that date a few years back.
    And before that I think you could even find me saying I am an atheist. ^^

    But I assure you this: I am truly and honestly NOT an honest Christian. Whatever that might be.
     
  7. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,605
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +254 / 0 / -0
    *bows* and none taken, Tur ;)
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011
  8. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,694
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,157 / 5 / -0
    I don't want to butt into what seems more like an argument almost rather than a debate. I just want to clarify what my opinion is of respect.

    I agree that respect and agreeing is not the same but it does often go hand in hand. For example. While Foin might think otherwise because of my past actions I respect him as a human being, but I do not respect some of his views. What is the difference here? That I don't like his views and that I think it's wrong he has such. I won't name them, but there you have it. It's not something you can really generalize. I respect Foin in general, but does that mean I have to respect everything about him? You might say now that I'm not talking about respect, but about agreeing. Not true. Cause if I disagreed about something I still might respect it. For example. If someone thinks Lord of the Rings is a good book, I would disagree, but I would still respect others that they like it. That is their right.
     
  9. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,208
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +319 / 2 / -0
    Whoa, I think we can officially call this a reunion right now

    I feel all warm and fuzzy all of the sudden :D
     
  10. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,694
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,157 / 5 / -0
    I'm glad you're taking my opinion so seriously(!) lol
     
  11. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,605
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +254 / 0 / -0
    I was wondering when you were coming, Anakin ^^

    That with the respect and agreeing part is something we will continue on disagreeing about, I guess.
    I understand respect in that way: I accept Foi (sorry for using you as an example, foi) has an oppinion.
    I accept he is entitled to have this oppinion and to keep it as the free human being he is.
    I accept that it differs from mine (greatly so).
    And I accept the fact, that my oppinion is just as subjective as his is and has therefore the same value (Not to me of course, but objectively) as his does.
    I therefore respect fois oppinion as I would like him to respect mine. And I still believe he's more wrong than me. ;)


    You gotta respect that his oppinion is his oppinion and that he has a right to have it. Just as you do.
    At least in my oppinion. >.>
     
  12. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,694
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,157 / 5 / -0
    Ah but there lies the trick. I got to respect his right to have an opinion as he is a human being (or a living being for that matter), but do I have to respect that opinion. In other words I accept too that he has the right to that opinion, but for having such an opinion he doesn't deserve as much respect as he could if his view was different. So I respect his right to have it, but I don't respect the opinion itself. I think there is a difference. And I agree we can argue a lot about it and not come to a conclusion. All in all respect is complicated lol. And yes no offense to you, Foin, for using you as example.
     
  13. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,208
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +319 / 2 / -0
    Complicated, I'm sure ^^

    As far as it concerns some opinions voiced here, I understand that "not agreeing" is not strong enough to cover the load, is it?
     
  14. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,694
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,157 / 5 / -0
    Well apparently it's not the same. I think we agreed on that...
     
  15. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    You never did tell me your criteria for a believer.

    I agree that you can argue with them to admit that they don't know for certain that God exist but from my experience, that discussion is usually hostile (stop trying to doubt my faith! uuuwaah!) and you have to actually argue with them. Then there are those who can't be argued out of a hole they weren't argued into.

    Answer my first question. What about his opinion should I respect? I find it horrid.

    You haven't given me any reason why you respect another person's opinion that, according to your own viewpoint, is sick.

    Do you respect the idea that the Jews should be exterminated? Do you respect the idea that women should be men's servants? How about the idea of child cruelty? I can go on.

    The only ideas I respect are ideas that don't cause suffering and are rational. For example, I respect my friend's libertarian view despite me being a social liberal. Why? Because it's just a difference of opinions on how the government should affect its constituents lives.

    If he went on to say that Gays should be discriminated gainst, blacks and mexicans should GTFO of 'Murrika, and Jews should be killed, I would have no respect for his opinion on the topic of how a nation should be run. I would have very little respect for him.

    Right now you're sledding down a slippery slope and straight into Godwin's Law. Nothing in my viewpoint is repressive.

    If I'm discussing with fellow mathematicians about Godel's theorem and some Art major walks in and starts contributing jack-all, our opinions are more valuable than theirs.

    If you were sick, would you respect the opinion of your doctor and the opinion of the person sitting next to you in the waiting room on what to do exactly the same? No, you don't. You value the doctor's opinion over the person who hasn't shown any credibility or authority in the subject.

    No, but other people should accept the person with the master's degree's opinion
    No. You know, very little times do I get so annoyed on the internet that I feel the need to insult another person. Your daft strawman of my paragraph has almost brought me to that point. Hopefully you're smart enough to figure out what you did wrong, and how all your ramblings are nonsense and extrapolations.


    Uh, no. All the things I say about Christians are likely true for American christians. Christianity is still shit in other parts, and that's something that's in the bible. ;) (NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING ALL THE BIBLE IS CRUD. DON'T STRAWMAN MEEEEEEEEEEE! :p)

    No he doesn't.

    Uh, okay? When have I ever disputed this?

    No it isn't. Reason is the ground rule for civilized discussion. Being reasonable is more important than being respectful.

    No it's not. Being polite and honest is what makes society possible. I don't have to think highly of others (respect) in order to come into a social compact with them. I do it all the time at work.

    I'm sorry that all christians can't have that modicum of honesty.

    According to wikipedia, .5% of America is atheist. .5% is agnostic. 14% is irreligious.

    Doesn't mean we're born with them. They're just taught into us at a very early age.

    Except whatever religion they're taught is not the default.

    Can you quote the parts of my post that say that? I can tell you right now I don't believe that. I think some of the bible is evil. I think if anybody followed the bible 100%, they would be evil. Fortunately most Christians aren't so devout.

    How about you just drop the whole thing since the philosophy is a contradictory mess? Find an easier one to live by.

    Religion is only changed by society because society finds problems with religion that shouldn't be accepted. Having faith in something you don't follow completely seems really shallow.

    Yes.

    And you consider yourself to be credible enough to know what laws of God you should and should not follow? These are God's laws. And you're not following them. Doesn't that mean you go to hell or something (that's usually the sales pitch I hear).

    It may have started there, but it's not just a christian value. Immanuel Kant, German philosopher, also argues that the dignity of men is unimpeachable. John Stuart Mill, utilitarian, argues that men should have the right to do what they want so long as they don't harm others. Both of those are secular values.

    BTW, it's impossible for the bible to motivate you to pick one part of the bible over another.

    No, but you're being very unchristian for behaving that way. :p

    Because it's contradictory and there are other ethical codes that are similar to the value you have?

    So you just live by the bible? Because you grew up with those beliefs, even if you don't believe in the others? Well then everything I said about you being a Christian and criticizing your faith should be disregarded since you don't have a faith to criticize.

    I still don't understand why you follow parts of the bible but not all of it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2011
  16. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,694
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,157 / 5 / -0
    Again concerning respect I do agree to a certain point with ScreenXserver.

    Respect is something that is earned not given. I do think that every human being deserves a certain degree of respect, after all you want to be treated as others want to be treated. In an equal way. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way in equality and it's too obvious and sad that it doesn't. With our views being so different it is just to difficult for me to respect a person like Foin completely as I respect another like my own wife. They can't be compared as they are different in how they think, act and other. That is how I measure them on my own personal view and I do believe everyone does that. With all respect (lol) Tur and RW, I think you're trying to hide behind the difference in agreement and respect.
     
  17. Kelmourne

    Kelmourne The Savage Hippy

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    11,050
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    A Pirate city in international cyberspace
    Ratings:
    +430 / 2 / -1
    Side A: Claiming god exists
    Side B: NOT claiming god exists
     
  18. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,208
    Likes Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +319 / 2 / -0
    Well. I can't decide for you. However, the fact that you find it horrid doesn't exclude the possibility that you would respect it regardless.


    No doubt would I have called that opinion sick at one point or another. I haven't called it such in recent times, though. I would prefer you not to put words in my mouth.

    Given Christianity, and respecting that tradition, one cannot exclude that excluding homosexuality could be a wish of the followers of Christ. It would be up to me to argue against it, of course. But I don't think I would respect the freedom of a person with that opinion when I wouldn't respect that opinion nonetheless.

    You know, the prosecution of Jews has always been random. One could say there is a tradition regarding the pogrom - but it has always been cheap sentiment. As Ani said before, I think I would respect the right these people have to an opinion. Still, I would do everything I deem in my power to persuade them otherwise.

    I fear religion is a subjective matter. Unlike healthcare, which comes much closer to being a science.

    You suggest, by the way, that the opinion of priest of imam weighs heavier than yours. Which is quite funny ^^


    I'm sorry. Claiming superiority implies inferiority lies elsewhere. In that quote you appeared to deny the opinion of others or their right to an opinion. I find that repressive, yes.

    Just as, no doubt, the other way around?

    Heh.

    I would say this is Newton's third law in action. The question probably is whether a tolerant person should be tolerant of intolerance. I think that is the core question of the discussion so far.

    For a long time, I thought that I didn't. However, over time I came of the opinion that this was a fallacy, a hypocrisy. If I didn't tolerate the intolerant, then I would be nothing but intolerant myself. So, for the time being, that is, until I change my opinion again, I tend to be tolerant. So far it has taught me that people actually have good reasons to be intolerant, given the situation they find themselves in or the reasoning they choose to follow. In short, it has brought me respect for different people. Well, that and the fact I aged probably.

    In this instance, I took offense at the statement you made about the superiority of the opinion of those who have had the pleasures of university - a pleasure generally shared on this forum, by the way. It's easy to see where it went from there. Newton's law stipulates that a force in one direction leads to an equal and oposing force. So if anything, I should have kept modesty in my reply. On that account, I failed.

    That being said, I think the discussion ends here.
     
  19. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,605
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +254 / 0 / -0
    I think we're all just defining respect in a different way.
    You mention degrees of respect. Let's take that.
    everyone deserves basic respect. How about that?
    We're all human and as long as the other human being (that's stuck in a burning house together with a dog) has not killed or disregarded basic rules of society, I still prefer to save the human above the dog.
    And I'm sure you'll find points to argue in there too. And yes, if it was Hitler, I would save the dog.
    But if it was Foi stuck in the house (I really am sorry about for abusing you like that) I would chose Foi above the dog. Because I 'respect' him more than the dog.
    The respect I was talking about is the simple respect for a human. Well, we already heard that ScreenXsurfer doesn't agree with that.

    I was not talking about that we should all be honored by people we don't like.




    It does really sound as if you forbid or degrade other peoples oppinion based on how 'educated' they are or something.
    Then again I might be misunderstanding things.

    And while we're being picky: I disagree. You're oppinion might be more right because you can base it on facts (btw, I don't think math allows any oppinions). But every oppinion has the same value.
    (we should change this discussion to german. Words have fewer meanings there)

    So if I had a masters degree in theology and would claim God is a green haired guy who will eat us all for breakfast tuesday morning, would you accept it?
    Only because I study something, doesn't mean I know all of it.


    The problem with me strawmanning you is that I absolutely have no clue what it means to strawman someone. It's basically an accident. Sorry :D

    Yes he does.

    Difference in oppinion, huh?
    I'll jump now and slide right after Tur on his slippery slope and pull Hitler back into the game.
    I guess he as well did not respect humans simply because they were human.
    For whatever sick "reason" he murdered all those people, it all starts out with a lacking of simple respect for human life.

    But how do I discuss in a polite way, if I don't respect (in the most basic way) the other person? How would that work? Read above to find that the respect I was talking about is not to think highly of someone else.


    And neither is the language
    I can't. I read that between the lines. I heard it comes to misunderstandings when there's a lack of visible body language.

    Exactly. Society makes religion. And as I as the personal me define what I believe in, I always follow it completly. Noone believes in Religion. Folks believe in God.

    The personal me doesn't believe in hell ;) As it does not believes in God's laws.

    And I bet that both of them grew up in christian societies. (I'm sure about Kant, not so much Mill.) And Kant does agree with me (though to decipher his twisted use of the language 100% is well impossible) in a way. He too says that God (and with that also religion) is made up by society.

    But it leaves me no choice. If it contradicts itself, I have to chose. So it's a 50-50 chance, isn't it ;)


    No, lol, that's not what I meant.
    I wasn't meaning "why deny the bible?" but "why deny that the bible (and christianity) made the foundation upon which I (and society) built it's values"?


    ummm, no?!
    Did I say I live by the bible? I really hope not. Because I don't ^^ I totally don't.
    The number of times I picked up the bible to actually read it can be counted on one hand.
    And if 'love your next' would be written in the quran (as I am sure it is) and I would've been told that first, the foundation I built my values on would be the quran.
    Or Lord of the rings, if it was written there and my parents had told me so in my childhood.

    It's something I 'believe' in not because the bible is the ultimate source of truth, but because I think that that is the best way to live peacefully together.
    But that thought is connected with the bible. And its main source is the bible and so I do not deny that it comes from there - at least for this western christian society.


    I have bunches of faith. I have faith in me and in the Dalai Lama and in humainty generally.

    Let me solve that for you: Because I am not a christian. I live by basic christian values, but I guess I believe far less than half of the stuff the catholic church preaches. (I am currently lacking other sources of preachers)
    (I spent a year in the US, in a "protestant" community and I can easily admit that I believe again less than half the stuff they preach there as well. I do however understand the pull those communities have. Firsthand experience :D)


    According to the scale you had a few posts ago, I guess I would be called Agnostic. There might or there might not be a God up there. Buddhism is cooler anyways :p
     
  20. Anakin

    Anakin King of TFF

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    35,694
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +3,157 / 5 / -0
    Ay, I agree with that, cause I don't agree that you should have no respect at all, but you all respect people in a different way. From your reply it's clear that you don't respect Hitler as much as someone else, and I don't want to compare Foin to Hitler (sorry again), but it does come to that kinda. Cause sorry Foin, it's not just out of love but also respect. So if I had to choose I would save my wife first and then you.... Sorry. If you have or would have a girlfriend I'm sure you would do the same with me. ;-)
    (Hell I'm pretty sure you would even save the dog first lol)