The Official Religion thread

Anything non-motor racing related.
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
User avatar
RoadPilgrim
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:39 pm

The Official Religion thread

Post by RoadPilgrim »

To carry over from the old forum, I'm hoping the moderators will allow an 'official' thread here which can act as a catch-all for all things theology related. Be it differing philosophical ideas, religions et al.

:twisted: Let's keep it clean!

User avatar
Guia
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: Round the Bend

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Guia »

There is no such thing as religion. There are only sausages.

User avatar
RoadPilgrim
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:39 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by RoadPilgrim »

Guia wrote:There is no such thing as religion. There are only sausages.


And the silky smooth touch of Cthulu's wet, slapping tentacles. Hail!

That sounded too Japanese-soap-opera-from-the-80s sounding for my liking. Awkward.

User avatar
domdonald
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by domdonald »

Religion is unnecessary and redundant :)

KooTeePee
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:36 pm
Location: Stirling, Scotland

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by KooTeePee »

Guia wrote:There is no such thing as religion. There are only sausages.


Wrong, there's mince. I deny the existence of your sausage, and extol the virtues of my mince; the mince of champions.

Furthermore, strengthened by our hearty meal of mince, my followers will soon overpower your puny sausage-eaters and convert you all to Mincism.

User avatar
BRAIN OF IRELAND
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by BRAIN OF IRELAND »

1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

KooTeePee
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:36 pm
Location: Stirling, Scotland

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by KooTeePee »

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)


Convert to mincism and we'll all be fine. :D

P-F1 Mod
Posts: 4357
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by P-F1 Mod »

Worship the mods.

Or at least, when I wake up. I've been up all night copying up Chrismo's thread for his family, and I need to sleep now!

When I wake up I promise to go back to being fairly formal :blush:

KooTeePee
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:36 pm
Location: Stirling, Scotland

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by KooTeePee »

P-F1 Mod wrote:Worship the mods.

Or at least, when I wake up. I've been up all night copying up Chrismo's thread for his family, and I need to sleep now!

When I wake up I promise to go back to being fairly formal :blush:


YOU'RE THE MESSIAH!!



*Converts immediately to Modism*

User avatar
Guia
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:59 pm
Location: Round the Bend

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Guia »

KooTeePee wrote:
Guia wrote:There is no such thing as religion. There are only sausages.


Wrong, there's mince. I deny the existence of your sausage, and extol the virtues of my mince; the mince of champions.

Furthermore, strengthened by our hearty meal of mince, my followers will soon overpower your puny sausage-eaters and convert you all to Mincism.


It's that sort of anti-sausagism that makes imperative the pork belly policies for which we Wieners are so criticised. But what you Mincists need to realise is that you can't call for the skewering of Wienerland and expect there not be consequences.

vikz22
Posts: 1297
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by vikz22 »

KooTeePee wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)


Convert to mincism and we'll all be fine. :D



or for those who like to eat meat at night

the church of the latter day steaks!

User avatar
MrMuttley
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by MrMuttley »

vikz22 wrote:
KooTeePee wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)


Convert to mincism and we'll all be fine. :D



or for those who like to eat meat at night

the church of the latter day steaks!


<SadTrombone.mp3> :lol: :lol:

KooTeePee
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:36 pm
Location: Stirling, Scotland

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by KooTeePee »

Guia wrote:It's that sort of anti-sausagism that makes imperative the pork belly policies for which we Wieners are so criticised. But what you Mincists need to realise is that you can't call for the skewering of Wienerland and expect there not be consequences.


Sorry I've now converted to Modism. Whilst I have lost none of my converting zeal, I'm also busy at work so give me a few hours and I'll come back with more followers and a church.

Venomal
Posts: 274
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:18 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Venomal »

and here we go! so far atheism is winning =)
--Veno--

User avatar
Banana Man
Posts: 2623
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:24 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Banana Man »

Here's irony for you:

http://amish.net/
I remember when this website was all fields.

User avatar
BRAIN OF IRELAND
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by BRAIN OF IRELAND »

MrMuttley wrote:
vikz22 wrote:
KooTeePee wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)


Convert to mincism and we'll all be fine. :D



or for those who like to eat meat at night

the church of the latter day steaks!


<SadTrombone.mp3> :lol: :lol:

:lol: +1
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

Beanhead
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:01 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Beanhead »

Banana Man wrote:Here's irony for you:

http://amish.net/


Like....very much
Official

User avatar
daytona81
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:59 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by daytona81 »

BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)


You obviously havent been reading long. So let me answer with a NO! :lol: jk. but seriously, probably not.
Image

User avatar
BRAIN OF IRELAND
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by BRAIN OF IRELAND »

daytona81 wrote:
BRAIN OF IRELAND wrote:1st post on the 'new' forum...
Can't we all just get along? ;)


You obviously havent been reading long. So let me answer with a NO! :lol: jk. but seriously, probably not.


Hmmm...haven't been reading long? :lol:
But yeah let's start the new forum with renewed optimism :)
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by minchy »

Nice to see that everyone is posting quirky little non religious based joke so as to not get their hands dirty by mistake :lol:

But seriously 'mincism' when did people start worshiping me???????? 8O
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

User avatar
Sarhan
Posts: 511
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Kashyyyk

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Sarhan »

minchy wrote:Nice to see that everyone is posting quirky little non religious based joke so as to not get their hands dirty by mistake :lol:

But seriously 'mincism' when did people start worshiping me???????? 8O


Whoah, slow down yo! It says "mincism" not "minchism" :-P

Bosse
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Bosse »

Religions are for old people.

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by minchy »

Sarhan wrote:
minchy wrote:Nice to see that everyone is posting quirky little non religious based joke so as to not get their hands dirty by mistake :lol:

But seriously 'mincism' when did people start worshiping me???????? 8O


Whoah, slow down yo! It says "mincism" not "minchism" :-P

:lol:
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

User avatar
thingy003
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:06 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by thingy003 »

SenseiFed wrote:And the silky smooth touch of Cthulu's wet, slapping tentacles. Hail!


I'm sure with the reconstruction of the giant penguins http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/29/giant-penguin-new-zealand-kairuku it is only a matter of time before the great one wakes from his slumber.

User avatar
Nephilist
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:07 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Nephilist »

Bosse wrote:Religions are for old people.

I've never liked the word 'old' for people. Your average 70 yr old in good mental health would say they feel like only a few short heartbeats have passed since they were in school. If we lived into hundreds of thousands of yrs then we could use 'old' but relative to the earth we're still farts on the wind at 100 and still know as much about the universe as a moth knows about the bulb it's flying around.
The most frustrating thing about these religion/athiesm debates is the language used in general anyway. If people used 'my most likely hypothesis based on what I've seen is...' or words to that effect, instead of 'this is proven' or 'this is fact' then we might get somewhere, but the general trend seems to be to put all other theories down based on our own fallible beliefs which in themselves are based on nothing more than varying degrees of biased observations over a very short space of time.
Always finish what you

User avatar
Leesa
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Leesa »

Everyone's been rather joking up until now, but I'm going to go ahead and outline my opinions here. I'm an eighteen-year-old, spoiled, American brat, just for some context here.

I was raised Catholic, but I just can't reconcile myself with some of the teachings of the religion. Mainly, that abortion is always wrong and that gays shouldn't marry. I can't fully express how strongly I disagree with each of those opinions. I've moved steadily away from the church, so I would not consider myself a religious person, but I would say that I'm spiritual. While I don't believe there's someone out there with all of the answers, or that the afterlife is a world of pearly gates and angels, I do believe very strongly in opportunity and goodness and fate.
"Jesus had a Honda. John 12:49: For I did not speak of my own Accord."

User avatar
domdonald
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by domdonald »

Leesa wrote:Everyone's been rather joking up until now, but I'm going to go ahead and outline my opinions here. I'm an eighteen-year-old, spoiled, American brat, just for some context here.

I was raised Catholic, but I just can't reconcile myself with some of the teachings of the religion. Mainly, that abortion is always wrong and that gays shouldn't marry. I can't fully express how strongly I disagree with each of those opinions. I've moved steadily away from the church, so I would not consider myself a religious person, but I would say that I'm spiritual. While I don't believe there's someone out there with all of the answers, or that the afterlife is a world of pearly gates and angels, I do believe very strongly in opportunity and goodness and fate.


Ahh humanism. No need for God, just enjoy the wonders of the world, the universe and of your family, friends and fellow human beings. trust and have faith in yourself and others, not the twisted words of some invisible absent omnipotent being which, despite the omnipotence, have to be coincidentally transcribed by ancient poor simpletons.

ToughGuy
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:41 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by ToughGuy »

domdonald wrote:
Leesa wrote:Everyone's been rather joking up until now, but I'm going to go ahead and outline my opinions here. I'm an eighteen-year-old, spoiled, American brat, just for some context here.

I was raised Catholic, but I just can't reconcile myself with some of the teachings of the religion. Mainly, that abortion is always wrong and that gays shouldn't marry. I can't fully express how strongly I disagree with each of those opinions. I've moved steadily away from the church, so I would not consider myself a religious person, but I would say that I'm spiritual. While I don't believe there's someone out there with all of the answers, or that the afterlife is a world of pearly gates and angels, I do believe very strongly in opportunity and goodness and fate.


Ahh humanism. No need for God, just enjoy the wonders of the world, the universe and of your family, friends and fellow human beings. trust and have faith in yourself and others, not the twisted words of some invisible absent omnipotent being which, despite the omnipotence, have to be coincidentally transcribed by ancient poor simpletons.


Amen to that :thumbup:

ToughGuy 10 commandments 8)

Eat well
Don't hump thy neighbors wife
Don't believe politicians ever
Buy Adidas. Nike so yesterday
Thou shall forever worship the XKR
Never take candy from a child
Stealing is forbidden. Though getting caught is daft
Thee shall not shake thy hand of the homeless man with flaky skin
Wash thyself from whence comes the Mississippi Steamer
Be true to thyself, Lie to others if it derives preservation.

Follow these You won't wander far from the light :D

Megamoss
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:21 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Megamoss »

I turned away from mincism years ago. These days I only worship the Q'uorn...

User avatar
MrMuttley
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:12 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by MrMuttley »

Megamoss wrote:I turned away from mincism years ago. These days I only worship the Q'uorn...


Sacrilege!!!

The Q'uorn is a false prohphet only the heathen vegetarians would bow the knee before him.


:lol:

User avatar
BRAIN OF IRELAND
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by BRAIN OF IRELAND »

domdonald wrote:
Leesa wrote:Everyone's been rather joking up until now, but I'm going to go ahead and outline my opinions here. I'm an eighteen-year-old, spoiled, American brat, just for some context here.

I was raised Catholic, but I just can't reconcile myself with some of the teachings of the religion. Mainly, that abortion is always wrong and that gays shouldn't marry. I can't fully express how strongly I disagree with each of those opinions. I've moved steadily away from the church, so I would not consider myself a religious person, but I would say that I'm spiritual. While I don't believe there's someone out there with all of the answers, or that the afterlife is a world of pearly gates and angels, I do believe very strongly in opportunity and goodness and fate.


Ahh humanism. No need for God, just enjoy the wonders of the world, the universe and of your family, friends and fellow human beings. trust and have faith in yourself and others, not the twisted words of some invisible absent omnipotent being which, despite the omnipotence, have to be coincidentally transcribed by ancient poor simpletons.


Ahh humansim - just another 'faith', but sold with so much more subtlety and on your children unbeknownst:

"I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care or large state university. " ~ J. Dunphy, A Religion for a New Age, The Humanist, Jan.–Feb
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by minchy »

Leesa wrote:Everyone's been rather joking up until now, but I'm going to go ahead and outline my opinions here. I'm an eighteen-year-old, spoiled, American brat, just for some context here.

I was raised Catholic, but I just can't reconcile myself with some of the teachings of the religion. Mainly, that abortion is always wrong and that gays shouldn't marry. I can't fully express how strongly I disagree with each of those opinions. I've moved steadily away from the church, so I would not consider myself a religious person, but I would say that I'm spiritual. While I don't believe there's someone out there with all of the answers, or that the afterlife is a world of pearly gates and angels, I do believe very strongly in opportunity and goodness and fate.

Just to point out that this is not the case in every denomination of Christianity. Admittedly Catholicism does keep these values, but most don't.

I'm glad you didn't fall into the trap that some people have done and declared yourself Atheist, while not understanding fully what that means.
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by minchy »

MrMuttley wrote:
Megamoss wrote:I turned away from mincism years ago. These days I only worship the Q'uorn...


Sacrilege!!!

The Q'uorn is a false prohphet only the heathen vegetarians would bow the knee before him.


:lol:

I think the problem with the followers of Q'uorn is that they want to be Mincist's but don't have the personal dedication needed to undertake a lifetime of Minsicm. So what they do is try and copy Mincism in their own way, but don't realise just how different and it is.
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Greg92 »

Leesa wrote:Everyone's been rather joking up until now, but I'm going to go ahead and outline my opinions here. I'm an eighteen-year-old, spoiled, American brat, just for some context here.

I was raised Catholic, but I just can't reconcile myself with some of the teachings of the religion. Mainly, that abortion is always wrong and that gays shouldn't marry. I can't fully express how strongly I disagree with each of those opinions. I've moved steadily away from the church, so I would not consider myself a religious person, but I would say that I'm spiritual. While I don't believe there's someone out there with all of the answers, or that the afterlife is a world of pearly gates and angels, I do believe very strongly in opportunity and goodness and fate.


If you don't mind me suggesting a couple things:

First: Using religious texts as argument against the concept of God is farcical. Either you accept those texts originate directly from a God therefore accept that a God exists or otherwise if you claim God doesn't exist than you have to claim that those texts have nothing but human origins.

Second: If you subscribe to the idea that religious texts have nothing divine about their origin, you know then that texts are written by humans and they only represent what humans consider to be true values (unless they have hidden agendas) at the time of their conception. Religious texts are no different in this context from constitutions, laws, technical manuals, medical texts, school books etc. However, religious texts have an inherent flaw and that is their rigidity (similar to some extent with constitutions) that requires a lot of effort for updates.

Third: Text books are never pure representatives of the ultimate principles they attempt to represent. Think of history books or even laws or to bring it closer to home, think of FIA's rules and regulations. Just because they get it wrong oftentimes that's not a good reason to dismiss history, human rights or racing in their pure form altogether.

As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.

As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue. For example, the Welfare system in US was a means to help poor families or unemployed people or single moms, nowadays I know many people that would rather remain unemployed than get a job that pays as much as unemployment; or even worse, I've personally known and heard of girls that consider becoming single moms as a means to secure a workfree life. Also I consider the consequence-free abandonment of children as a dangerous practice. Same goes for divorce IMO. People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.

Bottom line, even though religion is against abortion or gay marriage for no reason at all or for unclear reasons, that doesn't mean religion is the only one to take such stance.

User avatar
minchy
Posts: 5307
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by minchy »

falb wrote:If you don't mind me suggesting a couple things:

First: Using religious texts as argument against the concept of God is farcical. Either you accept those texts originate directly from a God therefore accept that a God exists or otherwise if you claim God doesn't exist than you have to claim that those texts have nothing but human origins.

Second: If you subscribe to the idea that religious texts have nothing divine about their origin, you know then that texts are written by humans and they only represent what humans consider to be true values (unless they have hidden agendas) at the time of their conception. Religious texts are no different in this context from constitutions, laws, technical manuals, medical texts, school books etc. However, religious texts have an inherent flaw and that is their rigidity (similar to some extent with constitutions) that requires a lot of effort for updates.

Third: Text books are never pure representatives of the ultimate principles they attempt to represent. Think of history books or even laws or to bring it closer to home, think of FIA's rules and regulations. Just because they get it wrong oftentimes that's not a good reason to dismiss history, human rights or racing in their pure form altogether.

As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.

As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue. For example, the Welfare system in US was a means to help poor families or unemployed people or single moms, nowadays I know many people that would rather remain unemployed than get a job that pays as much as unemployment; or even worse, I've personally known and heard of girls that consider becoming single moms as a means to secure a workfree life. Also I consider the consequence-free abandonment of children as a dangerous practice. Same goes for divorce IMO. People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.

Bottom line, even though religion is against abortion or gay marriage for no reason at all or for unclear reasons, that doesn't mean religion is the only one to take such stance.


I accept that most of your rant was personal opinion, but I do need to comment on your last sentence.

I don't know what churches are like over the pond with you guys, I can imagine Catholic churches are very similar, I've seen that Evangelical churches are very OTT to the point of extremism! But that last sentence is wrong in relation to churches here in the UK.

Yes, some are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage (BTW we get no benefit anymore from being in a marriage and our gay marriages aren't even that, they are 'civil partnerships' which can be then blessed by a religion if so desired) but most have moved on with the times (as you pointed out they should do with your written history / laws etc analogy) and accept things like abortion, gay couples, contraception etc.
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

User avatar
Leesa
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:58 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Leesa »

falb wrote:If you don't mind me suggesting a couple things:

First: Using religious texts as argument against the concept of God is farcical. Either you accept those texts originate directly from a God therefore accept that a God exists or otherwise if you claim God doesn't exist than you have to claim that those texts have nothing but human origins.

Second: If you subscribe to the idea that religious texts have nothing divine about their origin, you know then that texts are written by humans and they only represent what humans consider to be true values (unless they have hidden agendas) at the time of their conception. Religious texts are no different in this context from constitutions, laws, technical manuals, medical texts, school books etc. However, religious texts have an inherent flaw and that is their rigidity (similar to some extent with constitutions) that requires a lot of effort for updates.

Third: Text books are never pure representatives of the ultimate principles they attempt to represent. Think of history books or even laws or to bring it closer to home, think of FIA's rules and regulations. Just because they get it wrong oftentimes that's not a good reason to dismiss history, human rights or racing in their pure form altogether.

As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.

As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue. For example, the Welfare system in US was a means to help poor families or unemployed people or single moms, nowadays I know many people that would rather remain unemployed than get a job that pays as much as unemployment; or even worse, I've personally known and heard of girls that consider becoming single moms as a means to secure a workfree life. Also I consider the consequence-free abandonment of children as a dangerous practice. Same goes for divorce IMO. People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.

Bottom line, even though religion is against abortion or gay marriage for no reason at all or for unclear reasons, that doesn't mean religion is the only one to take such stance.


Thanks for your thoughts. I'm well aware that the Catholic church isn't the only institution to be against abortion and gay marriage, but, just as you've said that updating of texts and values is necessary, I think the point is that they haven't updated their values.

It's impossible to say that the topic of abortion is black-and-white. There are people in the world who lack any degree of conscience or responsibility who think that an abortion is just another form of birth control, and that's disgusting on a degree of levels. But there are always pregnancies that are a result of abusive relationships or violence, pregnancies that are high-risk to the mother, pregnancies with sick fetuses that might not survive more than a few days outside of the womb. Most pro-life advocates would argue that adoption is always preferable, and, while I don't disagree, I think there are so many unwanted children in the world already who can't find safe homes. A part of me finds adding to that number irresponsible.

I do agree with you, falb, that marriage should be for love instead of financial advantage. But I'm sorry, I can't at all relate to you on your arguments against gay marriage. As I see it, the core flaw in the institutions that argue against the equalization of marriage is that they believe homosexual relationships to be "strange" or "unnatural" or "dysfunctional." I look forward to a day when there is a global understanding that there isn't one "normal" sexual orientation. It isn't wrong for gay couples to be allowed access to children; we aren't saving the children from some irreparable deficiency if they have two moms or two dads. All we're doing by denying gay adoption and marriage is perpetuating the myth that homosexual people are of a lesser integrity than heterosexual people.

minchy wrote:I'm glad you didn't fall into the trap that some people have done and declared yourself Atheist, while not understanding fully what that means.


Cheers! I have friends who have fallen victim to this situation. I take it with a grain of salt; I don't think they realize exactly what atheism is.
"Jesus had a Honda. John 12:49: For I did not speak of my own Accord."

User avatar
bbobeckyj
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:48 pm

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by bbobeckyj »

falb wrote:
As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.

Would it be better for a couple who didn't want a baby, and who were not responsible enough to prevent a pregnancy in the first place, to actually have the child and raise it? Or do you mean adoption? (which pretty much means a high chance of care homes, foster care, and abuse)
falb wrote:As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue.

Someone said 'god created love/sex, priests created marriage'. The problem with not allowing gay marriages is when you have issues with legal rights/power of attorney etc. A worst case scenario, two gay men/women living together for years, both outcast by blood family, one is injured, in a coma, the other gets no rights for their partner, and when they die all the estate is passed the blood family. With that in mind, I think gay marriages are a good thing. Though quite why someone would want to be married by an institution that has rejected them for who they are, seems such a contradiction.

If being gay is a naturally occuring phenomenom, as is wanting to be a mother, how do you argue against two women wanting a child?

Are you against divorce for all reasons?
falb wrote:People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.
:nod: :(

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Greg92 »

Leesa wrote:I do agree with you, falb, that marriage should be for love instead of financial advantage. But I'm sorry, I can't at all relate to you on your arguments against gay marriage. As I see it, the core flaw in the institutions that argue against the equalization of marriage is that they believe homosexual relationships to be "strange" or "unnatural" or "dysfunctional." I look forward to a day when there is a global understanding that there isn't one "normal" sexual orientation. It isn't wrong for gay couples to be allowed access to children; we aren't saving the children from some irreparable deficiency if they have two moms or two dads. All we're doing by denying gay adoption and marriage is perpetuating the myth that homosexual people are of a lesser integrity than heterosexual people.


It's a delicate matter and I want to apologize beforehand if I sound offensive because it's not my intention. My points of view have nothing to do with the "naturalness" or "unnaturalness" of homosexuality, I simply believe that children need both parental figures to have a complete and healthy growth and development and form their character and that having two of one doesn't replace the missing other. We are still putting restrictions and delays on adoptions by single parents especially males which is not much different when you think about it. Again, I realize there are too many orphans and abandoned children and many gay couples so it's a practical solution to offer the children a home and family instead of the orphanage but still that doesn't make it right IMO, it's just a practical solution born out of necessity. To offer some perspective, the new healthcare reform in the US offers free abortion now to mothers unwilling to give birth and raise their child. I find it wrong too but I also agree that it's a practical solution born out of the necessity of the costs and issues related to abandoned children.

Greg92
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by Greg92 »

bbobeckyj wrote:
falb wrote:
As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.

Would it be better for a couple who didn't want a baby, and who were not responsible enough to prevent a pregnancy in the first place, to actually have the child and raise it? Or do you mean adoption? (which pretty much means a high chance of care homes, foster care, and abuse)


Carelessness is not and should never be an excuse. If you text while driving and kill someone you're not innocent and don't get a get out of jail free card. Why should a careless parent get such benefit?

But you're asking the wrong question. The simplest question would be: Why are people careless? In a longer form, the question would be, if future parents didn't have the convenient choice of abortion or abandonment or otherwise if there was a heavy burden over children given birth to, would couples still neglect using a condom or contraceptives?

I find it ironic that people use condoms to prevent contracting AIDS or other STDs but not to prevent the conception of an unwanted child and future unborn child. Obviously they care a lot for their own life but not at all for that of an unborn child. Obviously they value it less than the price of a pack of condoms.

bbobeckyj wrote:
falb wrote:As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue.

Someone said 'god created love/sex, priests created marriage'. The problem with not allowing gay marriages is when you have issues with legal rights/power of attorney etc. A worst case scenario, two gay men/women living together for years, both outcast by blood family, one is injured, in a coma, the other gets no rights for their partner, and when they die all the estate is passed the blood family. With that in mind, I think gay marriages are a good thing. Though quite why someone would want to be married by an institution that has rejected them for who they are, seems such a contradiction.


Your example is confusing. Wouldn't a simple will or testament be an easier and better solution?

bbobeckyj wrote:If being gay is a naturally occuring phenomenom, as is wanting to be a mother, how do you argue against two women wanting a child?


Easy, if you have both a heterosexual couple and a lesbian couple requesting adoption of the same child, who would you give the child to, were you the person in charge to make such decision?

bbobeckyj wrote:Are you against divorce for all reasons?
falb wrote:People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.
:nod: :(


I'm against divorce because it's easier and cheaper nowadays to get married and divorced two months after than it is to get a cellphone service contract and terminate it. To put it in numbers, it's 60 bucks to get married in Vegas and 300 bucks to get a divorce but it's 72 bucks to activate two lines of cellphone service and 730 to terminate the contract after two months.

IMO, divorce originated as a solution to people attempting to get out of marriage for just reasons, nowadays it's turned to a solution to people attempting just to get out of marriage for no reason. Same as with abortion above, would people get married so easily if they knew they couldn't get out of it? If the words "till death do us part" really meant what they mean?

User avatar
domdonald
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: The Official Religion thread

Post by domdonald »

falb wrote:
bbobeckyj wrote:
falb wrote:
As for the specific issues you mentioned, I am too against unnecessary abortion of willful pregnancies but not because the bible says so. I think it's a very convenient exit clause for cheap and careless couples. At the same vein, I'm very pro contraception.

Would it be better for a couple who didn't want a baby, and who were not responsible enough to prevent a pregnancy in the first place, to actually have the child and raise it? Or do you mean adoption? (which pretty much means a high chance of care homes, foster care, and abuse)


Carelessness is not and should never be an excuse. If you text while driving and kill someone you're not innocent and don't get a get out of jail free card. Why should a careless parent get such benefit?

But you're asking the wrong question. The simplest question would be: Why are people careless? In a longer form, the question would be, if future parents didn't have the convenient choice of abortion or abandonment or otherwise if there was a heavy burden over children given birth to, would couples still neglect using a condom or contraceptives?

I find it ironic that people use condoms to prevent contracting AIDS or other STDs but not to prevent the conception of an unwanted child and future unborn child. Obviously they care a lot for their own life but not at all for that of an unborn child. Obviously they value it less than the price of a pack of condoms.

bbobeckyj wrote:
falb wrote:As for gay marriages, I'm against the new form of marriage we have nowadays only as means to share benefits because I don't see why my roommate of 5 years and I couldn't share benefits just because we didn't have sex together. Obviously this applies not only to many gay marriages but also many others. I'm also against gay marriage because it enables gay couples to adopt children and IMO it's not right. I agree it's better than missing both parent figures so I agree that it's better for orphans to have a strange family than none at all but still that doesn't change my opinion that it's not right. BTW, I'm also strongly against divorce. I realize I'm talking about an ideal world but I've found out that many clauses that have originated as means to solve an issue have turned in time into stimulants of that same issue.

Someone said 'god created love/sex, priests created marriage'. The problem with not allowing gay marriages is when you have issues with legal rights/power of attorney etc. A worst case scenario, two gay men/women living together for years, both outcast by blood family, one is injured, in a coma, the other gets no rights for their partner, and when they die all the estate is passed the blood family. With that in mind, I think gay marriages are a good thing. Though quite why someone would want to be married by an institution that has rejected them for who they are, seems such a contradiction.


Your example is confusing. Wouldn't a simple will or testament be an easier and better solution?

bbobeckyj wrote:If being gay is a naturally occuring phenomenom, as is wanting to be a mother, how do you argue against two women wanting a child?


Easy, if you have both a heterosexual couple and a lesbian couple requesting adoption of the same child, who would you give the child to, were you the person in charge to make such decision?

bbobeckyj wrote:Are you against divorce for all reasons?
falb wrote:People get easily married for no reason nowadays because they can get a divorce as easily. Rant over.
:nod: :(


I'm against divorce because it's easier and cheaper nowadays to get married and divorced two months after than it is to get a cellphone service contract and terminate it. To put it in numbers, it's 60 bucks to get married in Vegas and 300 bucks to get a divorce but it's 72 bucks to activate two lines of cellphone service and 730 to terminate the contract after two months.

IMO, divorce originated as a solution to people attempting to get out of marriage for just reasons, nowadays it's turned to a solution to people attempting just to get out of marriage for no reason. Same as with abortion above, would people get married so easily if they knew they couldn't get out of it? If the words "till death do us part" really meant what they mean?



And the benefit of forcing two adults to be togethereven if neither of them want to be is..?
Marriage was conceived by insecure men to serve their purposes I.e. to force women to stay with them as long as they wanted and then to get rid of them when they wanted. Remember that women tended to marry for security and they in no way had equal rights even for claiming divorce on the grounds of adultery. Some mainstream religions are still archaic in this and other respects.

Post Reply