Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Theme Seasons and Celebrations - posted on 1st Oct 2017 at 1:52 PM
Replies: 598 (Who?), Viewed: 132882 times.
Page 1 of 24
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
Original Poster
#1 Old 18th Feb 2010 at 11:36 AM
Default Religion Thread: All Other Religions
Whether religious or not, you can debate all aspects of all non-Christian religions in this thread. Christianity is off topic for this thread and should be discussed here instead.

Remember to be nice and courteous to your fellow debaters, and to post links to evidence that backs up your position whenever possible!
Advertisement
Theorist
#2 Old 18th Feb 2010 at 12:06 PM
Does this thread include Atheism, or does that need its own Sticky?


BodyShopped /// ShoofleedSims
♦ // Jack.exe // ♦
/
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
staff: retired moderator
Original Poster
#3 Old 18th Feb 2010 at 12:13 PM
I'd say it's probably okay here - atheism is sort of religion vs. non-religion. If it gets dragged too much into only atheism then we can always make a new thread.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Field Researcher
#4 Old 18th Feb 2010 at 12:18 PM
I have a question for any practising Wiccans out there; What do you think of the subject, do you take it as a Religion or is it more like a series of philosophical ideals?

Im asking this as a genuinely interested agnostic

Well that's what happens when you're on your own and you're alright at letting nice things go
Field Researcher
#5 Old 20th Feb 2010 at 11:00 PM Last edited by Rectos Dominos : 21st Feb 2010 at 12:16 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoopy_loopy
I have a question for any practising Wiccans out there; What do you think of the subject, do you take it as a Religion or is it more like a series of philosophical ideals?

Im asking this as a genuinely interested agnostic


I am not a Wiccan but your question got me interested in learning about Wicca. The Wiccans do worship god(s). The Horned God and The Goddess to be exact they represent polarities in the universe like the Yin and Yang in the Taoist religion. I understand your curiosity in fact I wondered that myself too. I can't speak for the Wiccans but IMO I think they can take it as both a religion and ideals but it varies from person.


In the dictionary Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs (yes I copy and pasted that ). One of my friends doesn't consider Buddhism to be a religion since Buddha's not considered a supernatural being. Buddhism is under transtheistic category of religion meaning that it's based on teachings and philosophies rather than a deity but it is not considered atheistic but because most religions especially well known religions like Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc involve the worship of a god or gods that's why religions like Buddhism and Jainism sometimes "not religions".

I probably fall under agnostic the best but I don't know which word best describes my religious beliefs even though I labeled myself an atheist at some point. I love learning about religion even though I am not religious and that type of thing helps keep an open mind. One in this thread I want is for this to not turn into Christian bashing thread or any religion bashing for that matter (the moderator wouldn't like that either) luckily it's not looking that way so far . The last two paragraphs were my views on religion so don't worry Scoopy I wasn't lecturing you.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Field Researcher
DELETED POST
21st Feb 2010 at 12:57 AM
This message has been deleted by scoopy_loopy.
Scholar
#6 Old 28th Feb 2010 at 8:10 AM Last edited by Black_Barook! : 25th Mar 2013 at 2:37 PM.
Wow, ever since they separated Christianity from other faiths this thread hasn't been seeing much love...or hate. Pity. Oh well at least Islam isn't getting any attention for a change.

Back to work.
Top Secret Researcher
#7 Old 28th Feb 2010 at 9:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Barook!
Oh well at least Islam isn't getting any attention for a change.


Does Islam normally get much attention on this site? I've only ever noticed pro/anti christian discussion.
Field Researcher
#8 Old 28th Feb 2010 at 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simbalena
Does Islam normally get much attention on this site? I've only ever noticed pro/anti christian discussion.


Not that I've seen. The only Non-Christians I have seen on this are Atheists and a few Agnostics others not stated. I am not suprised that Christianity thread is more active than this I mean it is the largest religion in the world and most if not all posters are from Christian dominant countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Barook!
Oh well at least Islam isn't getting any attention for a change.



Harsh! The Muslims in todays media mostly consist of extremists their the rednecks of the Muslim religion that would be like if the only Christians we saw were the Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell's (yes I know he's dead) of the Christian religion .Wait isn't that happening?

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Scholar
#9 Old 2nd Mar 2010 at 2:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simbalena
Does Islam normally get much attention on this site? I've only ever noticed pro/anti christian discussion.


I don't think you were as active back than as you are now...not sure. Anywho Islam would enter the discussion when ever the Middle East was mentioned.
Forum Resident
#10 Old 3rd Mar 2010 at 3:08 AM
I've never seen pro/anti-Christian. It's always pro/anti-Christian-Fundamentalist. The average IQ around here isn't high enough for anything better, apparently.
Scholar
#11 Old 3rd Mar 2010 at 8:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Doofus
I've never seen pro/anti-Christian. It's always pro/anti-Christian-Fundamentalist. The average IQ around here isn't high enough for anything better, apparently.


I lol'd.
Site Helper
#12 Old 5th Mar 2010 at 2:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HystericalParoxysm
Whether religious or not, you can debate all aspects of all non-Christian religions in this thread.


Considering the purpose and scope of this thread, I'm surprised it's not larger...
Instructor
#13 Old 5th Mar 2010 at 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rectos Dominos
Harsh! The Muslims in todays media mostly consist of extremists their the rednecks of the Muslim religion that would be like if the only Christians we saw were the Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell's


Nope, they're worse. I don't like it when people say that there are extremists "on both sides" and therefore all criticism of one side is uncalled for. Fred Phelps and the WBC may be the most extremist Christians, but even they don't advocate violence. As for Al Qaeda... well, you know the deal. That's a huge difference for me, so please do not draw analogies there. (this wasn't necessarily aimed at you Rectos Dominos)
Site Helper
#14 Old 5th Mar 2010 at 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jooxis
Nope, they're worse. I don't like it when people say that there are extremists "on both sides" and therefore all criticism of one side is uncalled for.


Who says that? If there are extremists on both sides, then the criticisms against extremists should apply to both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jooxis
Fred Phelps and the WBC may be the most extremist Christians, but even they don't advocate violence. As for Al Qaeda... well, you know the deal. That's a huge difference for me, so please do not draw analogies there. (this wasn't necessarily aimed at you Rectos Dominos)


Just because the WBC doesn't advocate violence doesn't mean they're saints. Screaming vulgarities at people's funerals may not be physical violence, but it's still cruel.
Forum Resident
#15 Old 5th Mar 2010 at 10:44 PM
Didn't Pat Robertson call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez about three years ago? Isn't that violence? If an Iranian ayatollah did that, we'd call that a terrorist threat.
Scholar
#16 Old 5th Mar 2010 at 11:01 PM
Quote:
Fred Phelps and the WBC may be the most extremist Christians, but even they don't advocate violence.


Fred Phelps advocates rounding up all the homosexuals and putting them in concentration camps. Sounds pretty violent to me.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Instructor
#17 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
Just because the WBC doesn't advocate violence doesn't mean they're saints. Screaming vulgarities at people's funerals may not be physical violence, but it's still cruel.


Of course it's cruel. Any jerk yelling at me on the street for any reason is being cruel. It's not the same as killing me and my family with explosives. If it is the same to you, then fine. For me it's not.

I'm sorry Doc Doofus- I don't know much about Pat Robertson, but if he hasn't killed anyone, then you're not making your argument strong enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kattenijin
Fred Phelps advocates rounding up all the homosexuals and putting them in concentration camps. Sounds pretty violent to me.


First of all, I can't find any quote of that, I did search.

But more importantly, even if he said it it's his opinion and he should be entitled to it. Opinions do not necessarily equal acts of violence. Ahmadinajad can have his opinions too. Directly causing violence, physical harm to other human beings is where I, and many others, draw the line. And this violence is something we are seeing more on the "muslim extremist side". Take that any way you will.
Site Helper
#18 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jooxis
Opinions do not necessarily equal acts of violence. Ahmadinajad can have his opinions too. Directly causing violence, physical harm to other human beings is where I, and many others, draw the line. And this violence is something we are seeing more on the "muslim extremist side".


I remember hearing about the good Christian folk in Northern Ireland blowing each other up and the Basques in Spain setting off bombs long before the "war on terror" became a staple of the nightly news. In recent years, yes, the Muslim terrorists have been committing many of these acts. But the hands of other extremist groups aren't clean by any means, especially if you go back a few years.
Forum Resident
#19 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 5:02 AM
Quote:
Fred Phelps and the WBC may be the most extremist Christians, but even they don't advocate violence.


So calling for the assassination of political figures you don't like isn't the same as advocating violence?
Instructor
#20 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 6:19 AM
The difference is action versus inaction.
Instructor
#21 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Doofus
So calling for the assassination of political figures you don't like isn't the same as advocating violence?


What Elyasis said...

If Fred Phelps was indeed responsible for anybody's death, or indeed had serious plans to organize any sort of violent attack, he would have been arrested easily. We all know where to find him. But he isn't guilty of organizing acts of violence/murder. He is guilty of "hate speech" and annoying people. Not the same thing as, say, Osama Bin Laden.

fakepeeps7, everyone loves that stupid example, but the IRA are not a "Christian extremist group". I want an example of a group of religious Christian extremists who are using the Bible to justify their acts and are organizing attacks on innocent civilians/"non-believers" in the name of their Christian religion. Everyone says WBC, but that's not a good example because as I have stated before they are not physically violent.

Christians globally were offended by the da Vinci Code, I haven't heard of any murder attempts that resulted from this. They simply boycotted the movie and criticized it. The Jyllands-Posten cartoons generated more actual acts of violence and attempts at it. Did I say something untrue? I don't think so. Stop trying hard to justify everything in the name of sounding PC and provide actual arguments as to why this is.
Field Researcher
#22 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 10:35 PM
The IRA is an extremist group but they might not be defined as a Christian group since their goal is for Northern Ireland to separate from the United Kingdom and be part of Ireland. The have deliberately killed both Catholics and Protestants so I feel the conflict is more political than anything, I haven't found anything that supports the theory that they were doing it in the "Name of God" but because of the conflicts between the Catholics and Protestants is why people believe that. I would be more worried about Al Qaeda than the IRA since the IRA has never attacked globally but that doesn't make them any less of a terrorist.

It looks like there was some misunderstandings with my previous post. I was pointing out how the media only shows the radicals in most religions Muslims and Christians generally get the most attention for 2 reasons 1. They are 2 largest religions in the world and 2. Their actions are the most newsworthy and it could be a contributing factor as to why some people have negative opinions or feelings about the religion as a whole. Their not going to show the kind-hearted, caring people, who believe in helping your fellow man or woman of those faiths or any other faiths because people want to see the crazies.

Final note extremist is defined as far beyond the norm (used of opinions or actions) the word doesn't just apply to religion.

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people!
Site Helper
#23 Old 6th Mar 2010 at 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jooxis
fakepeeps7, everyone loves that stupid example, but the IRA are not a "Christian extremist group". I want an example of a group of religious Christian extremists who are using the Bible to justify their acts and are organizing attacks on innocent civilians/"non-believers" in the name of their Christian religion. Everyone says WBC, but that's not a good example because as I have stated before they are not physically violent.


Okay...

Army of God (anti-abortion group; justifies use of violence to uphold Godly ideals)
Sons of Freedom (Doukhobor extremist group; tactics included arson and bombings)
National Liberation Front of Tripura (seeks independence from India, but known to use forcible conversion tactics)
Lord's Resistance Army (militant Christian group in Uganda)

I'm sorry if I'm too "politically correct" for your taste. I'm just trying to provide a little bit of balance in contrast to your one-sided argument.

Please help me to understand your bias against Muslims. Were you personally affected by a Muslim terrorist?
Instructor
#24 Old 7th Mar 2010 at 12:30 AM
When you get down to it terrorism and religion are separate topics. You can hold the banner of God while going to war but are you really doing it for "him" or for yourself?

That's why I think these things are entirely separate matters. Old dusty books versus C4, dirty bombs, and chemical warfare.
Instructor
#25 Old 8th Mar 2010 at 7:14 PM Last edited by jooxis : 8th Mar 2010 at 8:04 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fakepeeps7
Okay...

Army of God (anti-abortion group; justifies use of violence to uphold Godly ideals)
Sons of Freedom (Doukhobor extremist group; tactics included arson and bombings)
National Liberation Front of Tripura (seeks independence from India, but known to use forcible conversion tactics)
Lord's Resistance Army (militant Christian group in Uganda)

I'm sorry if I'm too "politically correct" for your taste. I'm just trying to provide a little bit of balance in contrast to your one-sided argument.

Please help me to understand your bias against Muslims. Were you personally affected by a Muslim terrorist?


Well, half of those are politically motivated/separatist groups rather than groups trying to promote radical Christian ideology. And the other half, I see significant difference between this "Army of God" and Al Qaeda but whatever I say I'll probably be accused of nitpicking and so on. The KLA would be more of a "muslim equivalent" to the groups you mentioned and I don't even consider them "religious terrorists" but rather separatist terrorists who share a religion/culture (which is usually the case and makes sense)...
Also, judging by their wiki pages, those groups seem to be relatively unknown/small in size and local by nature.
My argument isn't one-sided, rather simply a valid observation without a conclusion, as I didn't even come to one. And you nicely illustrated the number one rule of mindless political corectness - "every culture and everybody in the world is completely the same in every possible aspect and therefore any observations that may hint to debate this are totally biased and a result of "bad personal experience" of the person speaking". That kind of attitude destroys any debate.
Page 1 of 24
Back to top