religion ideas and oppinions oh my

[jj82277]

Is it so wrong to include someones personal ideas in an oppinion in a discussion. I thought that this was a place that was designed to bring us all here to interact as normal people would. just knowing that we all held a common thread. I don't see a point as some have suggested as to refrain from making certain connections or analogies that i truly and honestly believe to be true as long as everyone is free to make comments or not, and to read them or not.
If anyone feels strongly enough about there beliefs as to post an opposing oppinion, i welcome that and would be gald to engage in friendly debat. I have no problem with being reffered to as a cultist, or being labled as having a version of a faith as long as the person who says it has the tamerity to meet their soon to be intillectual demise at the hands of my keyboard, and if that's too much, then just stay in the clips section. I understand that this forum is funded by those that have exploited us for personal gains and in a lot of cases blatently lied to us, but come on, its just thoughts right.

 

[CheshireCatNY]

"And then Pandora opened the box....."

here we go again.....😛 (sorry, religion has proven to be a VERY touchy subject around here)

 

[Kalamos]

Is it so wrong to include someones personal ideas in an oppinion in a discussion. I thought that this was a place that was designed to bring us all here to interact as normal people would. just knowing that we all held a common thread. I don't see a point as some have suggested as to refrain from making certain connections or analogies that i truly and honestly believe to be true as long as everyone is free to make comments or not, and to read them or not.
If anyone feels strongly enough about there beliefs as to post an opposing oppinion, i welcome that and would be gald to engage in friendly debat. I have no problem with being reffered to as a cultist, or being labled as having a version of a faith as long as the person who says it has the tamerity to meet their soon to be intillectual demise at the hands of my keyboard, and if that's too much, then just stay in the clips section. I understand that this forum is funded by those that have exploited us for personal gains and in a lot of cases blatently lied to us, but come on, its just thoughts right.

Since the matter is strictly intertwined with the last thread we discussed on, I suppose I could add something more.

I'll probably end up repeating myself - and I bet many people would rather pass... - but please, bear with me. 🙂



I think the key is exactly "normal" people.
You mentioned you expected users to meet here and engage in normal discussion.

This is an open forum - albeit with a peculiar slant - and I feel that it would be reasonable to face religious topics just as we accept to face other topics.

If, for example, homosexual users engaged in a discussion over gay unions we'd grant them the right to speak on - with no bias or prejudice.

In a way, we feel we are "more" than normal, since we accept world and people to be more complex than most "normal" persons do.

Since a lot of us share unorthodox sexual preferences, we are usually less bothered with the vagaries of life.
As long as nobody is going to shove something we don't like under our nose, most of us are content - without messing with others. 🙂

We appreciate the respect we receive, and we are happy to reciprocate on the same terms.



Refraining is actually a mark of wisdom, since being right doesn't necessarily mean "make everybody know you are".

Silence is not a mouthgag to choke people with.

As I said, being a Catholic, I could feel I am the most enlightened of all christians; catholics were the first christian sect to emerge from jewish religion - which all other "Confessions" later sprang from.

If I chose not to refrain myself, any and all debates could turn into flames, as I accused people from other cults of being heretics.

Nobody could stop me: if I used my faith to backup my ideas with, nobody could prove me wrong. Catholicism is the best, after all... 😉



As you can see, it is not a matter of *tamerity* [sic] to meet one's *intillectual demise* [sic] at your keyboard's hand...

I could brand you as "wrong" and "misguided" - just because you come from a different "sect".

You could not stop me from. Nobody could, since nobody can prove any religion to be wrong.


The very moment you mention "god", you are drawing the line.
To people who do not share your same faith or outlook, it would be like explaining "red" to a colour blind guy.

You of course are free to tell us of your spiritual feelings, but there is no way any and every other user will feel the same as you do.

Pressing the matter, you'd be going against the golden rule of "being polite" - and we take *that* rule seriously.


Even if being here does not clash with your own religious tenets, you should follow the rules of common courtesy and keep in mind that whatever you do, might be done to you.



Reg's.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"What...would...Jesus do?!"- Duff Man (from the Simpsons)

By the way folks, today is Palm Sunday.

 

[hilarydufftickl]

Jesus saves!

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

He sure does my friend, he sure does. 🙂 His death is drawing near again, but so is easter and all the joy that brings. I think its really important that we remember the passion of Christ, especially during these times.

 

[jj82277]

there are those that can not see the forest for the trees, the level of my personal restraint, is more than can be understood. i could not to begin to describe my level of infuriation at certain ideas is more than one could imagine because as a true covetor of faith i actually have moral conviction.
the idea of Catholicism having anything to do with the origions of Christianity is just plain silly to all those that poses Johns definition of understanding and for the simple reason that 90 % of the people here have very little clue the hermenutical argument that i am making i do refrain from making most of the moral arguments that i would make. I try to make my points as secular as possiblt, but the truth inevidably shines through.

 

[Kalamos]

there are those that can not see the forest for the trees, the level of my personal restraint, is more than can be understood.
i could not to begin to describe my level of infuriation at certain ideas is more than one could imagine because as a true covetor of faith i actually have moral conviction.

I am sure you are true and faithful to your own moral convictions.

I am also sure that many other people are faithful and true to theirs.

Mentioning the cult I was exposed to, was not meant to say that my religion is better than yours [it could be, so be wary... 😉 ].
I simply used your same arguments against you.

And your reply - see below - shows I wasn't wrong.



Debating religion is difficult, since it touches raw feelings and undemonstrable dogmas.

While claiming that you are true to your tenets is viable, claiming that your tenets are true is not.

Not because they couldn't be true, but because other people - me, in this case - might claim they are not.

How can you prove my tenets - not my arguments, mind you - wrong?

the idea of Catholicism having anything to do with the origions of Christianity is just plain silly to all those that poses Johns definition of understanding and for the simple reason that 90 % of the people here have very little clue the hermenutical argument that i am making i do refrain from making most of the moral arguments that i would make. I try to make my points as secular as possiblt, but the truth inevidably shines through.

Catholic Church was the second craddle of christianity.

You can quote the scriptures, to prove your point; I can quote history, and I'll call you a heathen, since only ministers can quite scriptures without error.

Catholicism does not allow not-ordained individuals to administer religion; if you are a layman, you can't resort to hermeneutics - the analysis of holy scriptures.

Whatever you say, I can consider it void by this simple religious argument.



If you replied that I am making you mad, I could say that you are pressing the matter - and since I am not mad at all, it would be clear the one wrong is you - and so I could ask the moderators to close the thread or delete your posts, on grounds of religious harassment.


Am I going to?
Of course not.

Is everybody, who could read you, not going to?
Unlikely.



Personally I don't care about your personal faith. I usually respect any and all individuals - *in spite* of their beliefs, habits, vices, convictions, preferences, ethnicity, gender, and whatever you can think of.

My point is: if even *this* level of self-restraint is an effort for you, then you could be in trouble, and find yourself involved in a nasty flame.

Even if moderators could agree with you - some do - they would be held by the forum's rules to sanction your behaviour - thus disrupting your point and proving you wrong.



If you disregarded the rules, to prove a point, you would be breaking them.
No matter how good your point was.

 

[cosquillero1]

hmmm...moral chat in a Tickling Forum, pretty interesting !.

 

[cosquillero1]

...tenets...

What mean "tenets" ?, could you say me Kalamos ?. That word don't appear in my dictionary.

 

[Kalamos]

Tenet - A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

A dogma, if you wish. 🙂

 

[cosquillero1]

Tenet - A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

A dogma, if you wish. 🙂

Thanks you my friend, you're an open book to me !! 😉 😀.

 

[jj82277]

we subscribe to a different set of rules
it boggles the mind how one can so covet the rules of man and disreguard the fact that they are inherantly flawed.
I love the fact that so many covet the free flow of drivel that is made up of personal oppinion, but shy away and scatter from the idea of soverign truth, like roaches when one turns on the light. the idea that i am mad is quite ubsurd, to know me outside of this confined reality would shed light on how far one has to go to actually make me mad. I live for heated discussions, that's why i hang around. no debate team in High School I guess.
and the fundamental premice of my previous post was based in historical fact and if you would like to go paradigm for paradigm thats fine by me, but i still feel as though you have no idea what point of view that i am coming from, but then again if you did i don't know if it would be that much fun.

 

[Kalamos]

we subscribe to a different set of rules
it boggles the mind how one can so covet the rules of man and disreguard the fact that they are inherantly flawed.

I am afraid *you* subscribe to a different set of rules from most other users.

You claim that human laws are flawed - yet you *must* follow them. Being a good christian [or jew, or muslim or whatever] does not necessarily clash with being a good citizen - and a respectful user.

Religion [or lay moral] can help in making laws better; but you cannot set rules aside, just because you believe they are flawed.

I love the fact that so many covet the free flow of drivel that is made up of personal oppinion, but shy away and scatter from the idea of soverign truth, like roaches when one turns on the light.

I'd like to point out that "sovereign truth" is beyond your grasp too - since you are human, and therefore inherently flawed as well.

You cannot stare at Supreme Light, because you are a sinner, as any and all are.

So, you should refrain from mentioning God, because you - as anybody else - are not worthy.

"What, me, unworthy?" you might yelp.
Yes. Exactly. I could brand you impure, and call you a sinner.
You are not even catholic... 😉

Prove me wrong if you can. By your own tenets and logic you cannot.
If the rules of man are flawed, you, being a man, and a product of those laws, are flawed as well.

the idea that i am mad is quite ubsurd, to know me outside of this confined reality would shed light on how far one has to go to actually make me mad. I live for heated discussions, that's why i hang around. no debate team in High School I guess.

You mentioned your "level of infuriation" - I am quoting your words.

The problem is this forum is neither suited nor meant for heated religious discussions.

A debate is about proving one's point right or wrong.
By their very natures, religious tenets [dogmas] cannot be proved either right or wrong.

So a religious debate on a public forum would be rather pointless and potentially volatile.

I am not questioning your capabilities to carry a religious debate on. I am questioning the sensibility.

and the fundamental premice of my previous post was based in historical fact and if you would like to go paradigm for paradigm thats fine by me, but i still feel as though you have no idea what point of view that i am coming from, but then again if you did i don't know if it would be that much fun.

Oh, fact is I do not care about your point of view. 🙂

Not because I am mean or careless.
But because the way you are expressing it is close to sparkle a flame - even if only a 100-some users visited this thread, so far.

If you are looking for a heated debate, you should be very careful about your wording.

Moderators are not lenient, especially on those who, by their own admission, disregard the laws of man - and press on delicate matters.



I'll stress this point, since you are clearly avoiding it: I am not questioning your faith, nor challenging your right to speak of it.

I am questioning your motives, and your ways of expressing your beliefs.


When you say that many "shy away and scatter from the idea of soverign truth, like roaches when one turns on the light" [sic] you are effectively insulting anybody who disagrees with you, or your faith.

If you don't care for that, then there is no way for us to carry a civil debate on.



On what, I ask again? Is this debate about your right to express your tenets? Or is it about the tenets alone?

You mentioned you expected this forum to protect your right to express your "oppinions" [sic].

Yet you are quick to disregard its rules and call liars the producers who are paying for your right to post on.

Since you cannot respect the forum, you cannot expect the forum to respect you.

 

[mart]

I am sure you are true and faithful to your own moral convictions.

I am also sure that many other people are faithful and true to theirs.

Mentioning the cult I was exposed to, was not meant to say that my religion is better than yours [it could be, so be wary... 😉 ].
I simply used your same arguments against you.

And your reply - see below - shows I wasn't wrong.



Debating religion is difficult, since it touches raw feelings and undemonstrable dogmas.

While claiming that you are true to your tenets is viable, claiming that your tenets are true is not.

Not because they couldn't be true, but because other people - me, in this case - might claim they are not.

How can you prove my tenets - not my arguments, mind you - wrong?





Catholic Church was the second craddle of christianity.

You can quote the scriptures, to prove your point; I can quote history, and I'll call you a heathen, since only ministers can quite scriptures without error.

Catholicism does not allow not-ordained individuals to administer religion; if you are a layman, you can't resort to hermeneutics - the analysis of holy scriptures.

Whatever you say, I can consider it void by this simple religious argument.

Read an authoritative account of the history of the Coptic Church, still flourishing today in Egypt, written by a Copt. It is really quite instructive.

 

[Kalamos]

-> ericmartin

I did not fail to mention catholic church as the second craddle. Not the first. 🙂

I thank you for mentioning it; coptic church has a fascinating history, deeply intertwined with the developing of monachism and christian religion as we know it.


Of course my point stands: I fear that JJ82277's posts could lure people into a flame; that's why I am suggesting him to rephrase his words, if he really cares for a serene debate.

 

[alf1]

Well .... what else to say ? Kalamos you're quite good for about debating on religion, and my religious english is quite poor, so i'll let you do your thing 🙂

Besides .... mhh nothing.

 

[jhop2201]

My view is simple. I am a Christian. However, I do not denounce other's opinions or beliefs. I maybe a Christian but it doesn't bother me to talk to a Muslim. Lots of people are of the Islamic faith and I respect it. I respect all beliefs because when it comes down to it....its faith. Or belief. Noone can prove without a shadow of a doubt that one religion is right and the others are wrong. The truth is noone knows. Noone knows what will happen after death. That is the whole basis around religion. Every religion. To be ignorant or untolerant to other religions is stupid. If you don't like a person because of what they believe then you should look deeper and quit being so shallow. I know lots of Christians who hate Muslims because of terrorists but you can't base a group of people to the entire religion. I see it all the time and quite frankly it makes me sick.

In closing, I respect any view you have on religion and all I can say is believe what your heart leads you to and don't give up on that belief.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Yes, understanding and even appriciation of other religions, dogmas, and faiths is important in expanding your mind and growing in knowledge, even if you don't personally follow those beliefs.

I for example have a few buddist friends, and even a couple wiccans. Unfortunately, because I moved out of that town, we've all but lost contact. But we all shared of eachother our religious and spiritual beliefs and it only made me more knowledgable, a very good thing.

Priests even, as part of their training, are experienced in theology that goes beyond christianity. Father John, our pastor, is very knowledgable about different cultures and their religions, and whenever he talks about them and applies them to christian views, its never in a bad or condecending way. He uses them as teaching tools and compares and contrasts.

If you bother to actually involve yourself with others of different belief systems, you'll see that your faith and theirs have alot more in common than you may think, and the more you know and learn, even if you don't personally follow it, it expands your understanding.

It builds you up, not breaks you down. And in the end, person per person, group per group, faith per faith, and religion per religion, theres less conflict and more mutual benefit. Friendships abound in such things, not to mention blessings. 🙂

 

[jj82277]

the idea of being silenced on this forum for what i contend does not really bother me all that much., they so hated my master that they tortured him to death. i only request that if you must crucify me that you do it upswide down because i do not deserve his execution.
I will leave the darktones of my debate behind. all those who understand will grasp the parallels between the institutions of man that we readily identify, and the ideas and principles of divinity that so few would even recognize and so many take forgranted.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Part of being Christ-like includes both parallals. We are called to be true and faithful, but to not forsake our brother or condemn him. People that don't have the later princible as one of their basic teachings and understandings will not have compassion in their hearts in matters of the spirit, and of fortitude, and of good will for that matter.

For example, one may do a good deed for another, but only because they feel obligated to. Therse nothing fruitful in that, even if it helps ther person you aided. In simple turns, one part of being Christ-like is openly giving of yourself without any thought of a reward or an expectation and doing it for Him, just as much as for that person, or yourself for that matter.

God speaks of idle worshippers in a negative light at points in the Bible, for he knows that even though they pay homage and lipservice, they do it for their own benefit only. They don't seek to spread it, only to appear pious and rightious and so others will see them as such. Its easy for people to accuse others of this at any time, but God knows your heart.

If you are speaking in all honesty so that people might learn, and the response is not in anger or a need to defy or put an end to the others, then I think you are doing good in speaking of such things, even if there is conflict and adverse opinions and rebutals. Jesus went out to the sinners and ate, and dined with them so that they too might understand or be better off than they were before. Talking about religion on a fetish forum is just one way, one explaination, one facet of an opportunity.

The fact we do it when it comes up, this subject that is, and NOT to infuriate others, is what makes it reasonable and legitimate. If one were to do it to simply create friction purposely then no good will come from it, no matter how much they were able to prove their point or outspeak the others.

Fortunately, despite the objections of others, as long as I've been here, I've rarely seen this to be an actual issue that was as horrible and plague-like as it has often been made out to be. That is often a deterent, so that it is not talked about at all. But that would be unwholesome as well, as it does not represent the wishes of the entire assembly, but rather indifferent people who would rather have nothing to do with it. Let us be reminded that we have the option to participate or not, just as much as we have the option to learn from others and the experiences we share, good and bad.

In closing, we need these kind of discussions from time to time. They are fundamentally necessary. Not as a regular form of communication or ettique, but one that is there nonetheless, when the need or opportunity arises. It is to be used sparingly, BUT not to be overturned and avoided. In following this there is balance.

Part of what makes a human being a human being is their ability to share and absorb. If not for that, none of us would even be here at all.

One hand washes the other.

 

[Kalamos]

the idea of being silenced on this forum for what i contend does not really bother me all that much.,

Nobody is silencing you. Especially not me, since I could simply ignore your posts, and let them sink down into oblivion. 😀 😀 😀

What I would really like you to explain is: what is your point, exactly?

You keep stuffing your mouth with religion, and outward shows of piety; nobody censored your posts, so far.

But what are you saying, exactly?

You mentioned hermeneutics, you mentioned sovereign truth, you mentioned tenets and dogmas.

But you never really explained the reason of your own first post.

What did you start this thread about?

they so hated my master that they tortured him to death. i only request that if you must crucify me that you do it upswide down because i do not deserve his execution.

Comparing you to a messiah seems a bit blasphemous, but if other christians are not going to complain, I sure won't. 😀

I will leave the darktones of my debate behind. all those who understand will grasp the parallels between the institutions of man that we readily identify, and the ideas and principles of divinity that so few would even recognize and so many take forgranted.

What you are taking for granted is this forum, and the chance you have to express your point of view.

I suspect you are only making fun of Vladislaus and his faith; you speak by riddles, quoting random sacralia. 😉

But you have yet to make a point.

Unless generic preaching can be defined as one.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Making fun of me? I don't see how he's doing that. Past experiences indicate he has nothing but respect for me.

 

[Kalamos]

I fear JJ is using religious terms to lure people into thinking he is really interested in a debate - while, so far, he's been offensive and inconclusive.


I'll quote you on this point:

The fact we do it when it comes up, this subject that is, and NOT to infuriate others, is what makes it reasonable and legitimate. If one were to do it to simply create friction purposely then no good will come from it, no matter how much they were able to prove their point or outspeak the others.

I fear that the way he's carried the "debate" on, so far, was only meant to create friction.

Since you apparently share the same religious outlook, you could actually consider him well-meaning and true.

I, on the other hand, question his reasons - since nobody tried silencing him, and yet he cried out martyrdom.

the idea of being silenced on this forum for what i contend does not really bother me all that much., they so hated my master that they tortured him to death. i only request that if you must crucify me that you do it upswide down because i do not deserve his execution.

He rebutted me of making fun of God.

I must assume no irony was present in JJ's words, so I'll return him the favour: JJ, stop with the blasphemy.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Difference of opinion may have caused that anyway. I'm interested to see how the rest of you carry this out, since this is revolving pretty much around you two.

I do not see however how he would be offending me. I wouldn't expect him to see things exactly as I do, whether he seems on the same page or not.