Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[TD1]

It wasn't that I didn't understand. I just thought it was a less-than-stable way to view morality, and also maybe a tad bit arrogant. No offence, but your morality isn't better than mine, and you are not automatically a better person

I'm not trying to get to you, just saying what I think.

[origamiscienceguy]

It wasn't that I didn't understand. I just thought it was a less-than-stable way to view morality, and also maybe a tad bit arrogant. No offence, but your morality isn't better than mine, and you are not automatically a better person

I'm not trying to get to you, just saying what I think.

I'm just bad at explaining everything. Tunnel-visioned.

[TD1]

I used to say something similar, until I realised I was only saying it because I had an undefendable position. Now I either change my view slightly or research more into my view rather than say "I can't explain it."

Just because someone can say it more concisely or in less words than you does mean that you are bad at explaining. Not being able to explain means that you do not understand, as a general rule.

...

This may be presumptuous, but ah well.

[origamiscienceguy]

I can explain it, I just focus on one thing without giving any background or related information that is required to understand it. I just assume everybody already knows. That is why I am bad at explaining things.

[Orange Wizard]

I can explain it, I just focus on one thing without giving any background or related information that is required to understand it. I just assume everybody already knows. That is why I am bad at explaining things.

Don't worry, I do that too. Everyone's bad at everything until they've practised it enough.

...

The other stuff is what's interpretative. What's other, and what's canon? And which parts of the canon take precedence?

Just off the top of my head, there are lots of things related to Christianity that the Bible doesn't explain or explains vaguely enough for people to disagree:

• Sacraments (what is, how to do)
• Baptism (when/how, necessity thereof)
• Whether women should preach
• How much to tithe
• Relevance of the OT
• How to structure a service
• Homosexuality/transsexualism
• Young earth/old earth
• Election/reprobation
• Sola scriptura

And so on. These things are not the core of the religion, they're the trappings. Some are more important than others, depending on who you ask. Some people think that some things take precedence over Christ's teachings. Some people focus only on Christ's teachings.
The presentation varies, but the core remains the same. That's why there's 30 000 denominations of Christianity and not 30 000 loosely-affiliated religions.

[penguinofhonor]

I'd say the core of Christianity is still up for debate. Plenty of people consider Mormons and/or Catholics to be non-Christian because they are such large departures from what these people consider the core values of Christianity. There's really not a hard line between a denomination and a loosely associated faith, it just depends on who you ask.

[Loud Whispers]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/gambia-president-declares-islamic-statehood-151212153025585.html
checi

[Graknorke]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/gambia-president-declares-islamic-statehood-151212153025585.html
checi

a secular government is colonial now?
k

[Loud Whispers]

No it went from Colonial to Secular to Islam

[Graknorke]

"Gambia cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy," pretty heavily implies to me that he considers a secular state to be part of their 'colonial legacy'.

[Loud Whispers]

"Gambia cannot afford to continue the colonial legacy," pretty heavily implies to me that he considers a secular state to be part of their 'colonial legacy'.

Hamat Bah, of the opposition National Reconciliation Party, criticised the decision. "There is a constitutional clause that says that Gambia is a secular state," he said. "You cannot make such a declaration without going through a referendum."

Jammeh's government has been regularly criticised by Britain and other Western powers for human rights abuses. Jammeh has ruled Gambia since seizing power in 1994.

Jeffrey Smith, a senior advocacy officer at the Robert F Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, told Al Jazeera that Jammeh's "unilateral" decision to call Gambia an Islamic republic is part of a "larger pattern of capriciousness" and has ulterior political motives.

"Gambia is not a country of laws but is rather ruled by the whims of Yahya Jammeh," Smith said.

Second, Jammeh has burned all bridges with his former donors in the West due to his deplorable human rights track record and the rampant corruption that he has participated in.

"As such, he is desperately attempting to foster a closer and more lucrative relationship with the Arab world. By couching his decision in terms of 'fighting colonialism', we can see that he is trying to cozy up with other parts of the world that harbour anti-West sentiments," he said.

Newspeak

[redwallzyl]

so what do people think of this?

[origamiscienceguy]

so what do people think of this?

I don't think anything bad will happen neccessarily, but I also think that it is somewhat pointless

[wierd]

"A house divided cannot stand."

What point is there in shoving 3 mutually exclusive religious faiths into one crowded center of worship?

[origamiscienceguy]

Correction: I think it is very pointless.