Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

[Brianwarnock]

I don't know where I'm supposed to have done that, however I do believe that a concept and a follower of a concept are not the same., are you really saying that a sane concept cannot have daft followers, or vice-versa?

No don't answer this is just too ludicrous.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

I don't know where I'm supposed to have done that, however I do believe that a concept and a follower of a concept are not the same., are you really saying that a sane concept cannot have daft followers, or vice-versa?

No don't answer this is just too ludicrous.

Brian

I'll try to clarify.

Not so, Chergh insulted a concept, Paul insulted a real person. end of story.

You got there before me Rich,

The notion is this.

To say that insulting a concept like religion does not risk overlapping its subscribers is not true. I suggest that you choose to not insult the concept because of this fact.

I think it is daft to argue that a concept like religion is divorced from it's subscribers in this way. It is after all a creed that people base their lives on.

 

[Brianwarnock]

To say that insulting a concept like religion does not risk overlapping its subscribers is not true. I suggest that you choose to not insult the concept because of this fact.

I hadn't thought about it like that but maybe you are right to some degree, but I bet that there are times that I say things like, " Religion is flawed/daft/manmade/stupid " without intending to insult any person. Is that not possible?

I think it is daft to argue that a concept like religion is divorced from it's subscribers in this way. It is after all a creed that people base their lives on.

I think the second sentence here just makes me be careful. One has to respond at the correct level, if somebody is ramming their religion down my throat then it is different than somebody wanting to say grace.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

I hadn't thought about it like that but maybe you are right to some degree, but I bet that there are times that I say things like, " Religion is flawed/daft/manmade/stupid " without intending to insult any person. Is that not possible?

Absolutely. However when one says something like "God is a dick" then one can be inclined to think that offense is intended. At best it is that care is not being taken to not offend.

I think the second sentence here just makes me be careful. One has to respond at the correct level, if somebody is ramming their religion down my throat then it is different than somebody wanting to say grace.

Brian

Absolutely. The context here is one of considered theological discussion which is why I find chergh's comment as, at best , inconsiderate.

 

[Rich]

I'll try to clarify.





The notion is this.

To say that insulting a concept like religion does not risk overlapping its subscribers is not true. I suggest that you choose to not insult the concept because of this fact.

I think it is daft to argue that a concept like religion is divorced from it's subscribers in this way. It is after all a creed that people base their lives on.

So by your own definition one should not insult Muslim bombers either

 

[Rich]

I wonder why Americans have such a hatred for communism

 

[dan-cat]

So by your own definition one should not insult Muslim bombers either

Any approach can be twisted by the use of absolutes.

 

[Rich]

Any approach can be twisted by the use of absolutes.

No, same rules you insist upon and you haven't answered the question regarding communism

 

[ColinEssex]

Any chance at pointing me at that post as I try to answer all reasonable questions put to me. Must have missed this one.

Brian

Ok, I'll try and find it.

It's the one where you objected to me reminding people about their stupid titles.
Then you said I could only post in position No.2, then you said I was a pain always pointing this out.

So I said, "what do you want me to do?", it seems anything I do is wrong to you.

Col

 

[Brianwarnock]

Ok, I'll try and find it.

It's the one where you objected to me reminding people about their stupid titles.
Then you said I could only post in position No.2, then you said I was a pain always pointing this out.

So I said, "what do you want me to do?", it seems anything I do is wrong to you.

Col

I know the one except that your "what do you want me to do?", had no ? and followed my post telling you what to do , therefore I assumed that it was rhetorical.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

No, same rules you insist upon

and applying it to an absolute. I'm not bothered that my approach jars with absolutes because very few don't. You on the other hand rely on them to form your argument which says little for it.

and you haven't answered the question regarding communism

Churchill's Iron Curtain propaganda I reckon.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Here you are col

The Title of the thread was Newbie Question

Pretty useless really, but did col really need to be so sarcastic and unhelpful at Post # 14
Our “conversation went like this.

May I congratulate you on the excellent title for this thread.

Criticism is not allowed here any more.

Col

Only pointless criticism, if yours was the first post, suggesting that the poster might get a better response if he had a meaningful title, you might even suggest one to help in future postings, then that's fine, but now and in the form it is, its just petty.

Brian

I don't know what you want me to do. If I advise people that their title is uninformative then that seems wrong, if I do the opposite that is wrong, if I don't answer the question then that is wrong, if I don't post in post number 2 then that is wrong.

You know? I just don't care anymore. Nobody cares, people don't care, carers don't care, polititians don't care.

I'm sick of it. You say "where's the old Col?" The old Col is finished, this is now me and I've had enough.
I hate people, I hate caring, I hate the world.

Now is the time.

See you.

Col

As I said no ? , and given Col's insistence on correct English I assumed that he wasn't actually asking for a resonse.
Just for the record this was not the first instance of this in a couple of days, and none of Col's posts offered useful advice, only criticism

Brian

 

[Rich]

and applying it to an absolute. I'm not bothered that my approach jars with absolutes because very few don't. You on the other hand rely on them to form your argument which says little for it.



Churchill's Iron Curtain propaganda I reckon.

A phrase first coined by Goebbels but a religion followed by millions thus by your own definition not applicable for insult

 

[dan-cat]

A phrase first coined by Goebbels but a religion followed by millions thus by your own definition not applicable for insult

I think it's matter of priority.

For you, the freedom to insult is more important than the risk of offending those you frequent the boards with.

I'm quite willing to give up such a freedom to avoid alienating any board members who are spiritually inclined.

I can say what I need to say without being insulting anyway. It's not a big deal for me.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You're seeing things in a very balanced way and I'm impressed by your reasoning.

Why thank you.

I don't feel comfortable insulting a concept with full knowledge of how certain good people are personally engaged with it.

I know what you mean, but with religion it is almost impossible not to do so. Various religions are diametrically opposed; if you think one is correct, the other cannot be. By labeling yourself a member of a particular religion, you are, in essence, saying that all of the other religions are wrong.

I'm not a religious person, never have been, and I'm quite convinced that I never will be. I do find religion incredibly interesting as an academic subject. Reading about what people believe, or have believed in the past, the ceremonies, edicts, rules, etc, of various religious organizations. All of that is very interesting to me and I have spent many a day reading through articles on religion as well as religious books themselves. I'm also an amateur author and I have tried to make the religions in my fantasy worlds more life-like, and thus draw inspiration from real life sources.

However, when it comes to real, day-to-day life, I can honestly say that it disturbs me that some people truly believe in their religion. I like to think reality is objective. But throw religion into the mix and it no longer is.

I honestly believe that religion as a whole serves to separate and divide people rather than bring them together. I'd love to see religion's influence disappear and have it replaced by a general sense of community where people care about people just because they are other people living on the same planet, going through the same stuff. Not because a book told them so.

I say all these things knowing that some people will take offense to my words. Do I want to make them feel bad? No. But I would like them to think about it. I truly think my way would lead to happier people, and a better life in general for all.

Now, I also like to try to see things from all sides. I know that someone could be religious, and they could be taking some of the same actions I am (with a religious spin), and be expecting the same results. They likely do think that if they spread their religion, if more people accepted it and lived by the rules in their book, it would lead to happier people, and a better life in general for all.

That's why I never attack the person. Some one may be religious for no other reason than that they were raised by a family that was religious. But to them it is important. They are viewing their religion as an integral part of their life. Asking them to analyze their religion alone is almost impossible for them to do because it is a part of who they are, rather than what they believe.

So I'll continue trying to debate, teach, give examples, etc, as to why I think religion is a bad thing. And they will continue to do the same to show why it is a good thing.

In summary, I don't think religious people are bad people, I just think their religion is a bad thing. And I think if they were able to objectively look at their religion, they would start to come to the same conclusion.

Anyway hats off to you for keeping level on a very turbulent thread.

And to you.

 

[Rich]

I think it's matter of priority.

For you, the freedom to insult is more important than the risk of offending those you frequent the boards with.

.

Totally missing the point, I'm all for attacking the post and not the poster except when personal insults are involved, where do you stand on that?
Oh and by the way, communists are evil and Stalin's a twat

 

[dan-cat]

I know what you mean, but with religion it is almost impossible not to do so.

Perhaps but it is the intent that is key here. The context is of discussion and of mutual respect. How does insulting language to describe a concept encourage balanced participation from all sides? Can you actually insult a concept or does the insulting nature only arise from it being implicitly targeted towards the group of people who subscribe to it?

However, when it comes to real, day-to-day life, I can honestly say that it disturbs me that some people truly believe in their religion. I like to think reality is objective. But throw religion into the mix and it no longer is.

But the interpretation of reality is forever subjective. A great example of this is when a loud speaker picks up a radio signal through a loose connection. All you hear are faint voices in the air.

It happened to me when I was studying a mental health module at college and I panicked thinking I was developing schizophrenia.
It happened to my mother in law at church and she thought she was hearing the voice of God.
It happened to a friend of mine and he thought he was hearing a ghost.

We all felt very foolish when we found the definitive answer but it shows how differently individuals interpret reality. For me, religion is just a result of this, not a cause.

I honestly believe that religion as a whole serves to separate and divide people rather than bring them together.

Perhaps. There was a very long thread here on whether there would be wars without religion. I think there still would be. As I said before, religion is just a symptom of how people interpret reality differently. This would still happen without religion, in my opinion, and wars would still spring from that.

Religion does bring people together too but then so does nationality, politics and soccer clubs. Both violence and harmony have sprung from all these things.

But I would like them to think about it.

Here is the crux to my point. Intent. Insults are not engaging. If you want to engage someone to listen to you then why use insults? Yes you may insult anyway but by deliberately not taking care you are reducing your chances to next to zero.

There is a serious dangerous of implicitly expressing a mal-intent by using insulting language, don't you agree?

Now, I also like to try to see things from all sides. I know that someone could be religious, and they could be taking some of the same actions I am (with a religious spin), and be expecting the same results. They likely do think that if they spread their religion, if more people accepted it and lived by the rules in their book, it would lead to happier people, and a better life in general for all.

Yes, isn't it strange how the intentions of many can be so similar though they are based on such different interpretations of reality?

Asking them to analyze their religion alone is almost impossible for them to do because it is a part of who they are, rather than what they believe.

I would say that this is the same for everyone. We are all immersed in our own interpretation of what is real.

In summary, I don't think religious people are bad people, I just think their religion is a bad thing. And I think if they were able to objectively look at their religion, they would start to come to the same conclusion.

As you have probably gathered, I'm not a fan of objective reality.

 

[dan-cat]

Totally missing the point, I'm all for attacking the post and not the poster except when personal insults are involved, where do you stand on that?
Oh and by the way, communists are evil and Stalin's a twat

I think that attacking the poster is best avoided wherever possible, this extends to not using insulting language to describe an emotive topic when it draws no benefit.

 

[Rich]

I think that attacking the poster is best avoided wherever possible, this extends to not using insulting language to describe an emotive topic when it draws no benefit.

Are you suggesting that god's not capable of defending itself?

 

[dan-cat]

Are you suggesting that god's not capable of defending itself?

Is God a poster on the boards? Do you know something that I don't?