Print

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

[Frumple]

In order to join such an organization, they would first have to change it's basic laws. Why join something for the purpose of making it something that it isn't?

To... make it better. Or the world better. Or help people. Y'know... stuff like that? And in the case of stuff that's not central to the identity of the organization,* it doesn't really change the organization's core identity any.

*And discrimination against homosexuality is about as core to christianity as stoning people who wear mixed fabrics to death or celibacy among their priesthood.

[Tack]

Haven't been in this thread for a long time, but:

People saying that 'The Banner Saga' is bad writing.

Spoiler: Massive spoilers (click to show/hide)

Everyone carps on about 'it's a non-sequitur and there's no way of seeing it coming and no dialogue options work and it's all so Saaaad and the writers are terrible.
Gets me incredibly angry.
To those people:
Guess what? You can't trust people. 98 out of 100 people will be happy for your trust and not want to abuse it, and the other 2 will take you for everything you're worth.
Guess what x2? EVIL PEOPLE DO NOT SMOKE PIPES AND WALK AROUND ACTING LIKE TRAITORS.
Yes, the guy suddenly turning out to be evil and slaughtering a fair percentage of your caravan, that's pretty shit. But if you honestly call it bad writing because you didn't see it coming, then I am going to stand and fume at your naivete.
Ever heard of the Thuggee? They were a bunch of caravan thieves, whose way of choice was to join with a caravan, move with it for a time, get along with everyone and then meet with the rest of their gang at a predisclosed location so they can strangle the lot of them in their sleep.
They did this successfully for a huge amount of time, leaving no survivors and killing hundreds of thousands of people.
But I bet everyone who died to them went 'THIS IS TERRIBLE WRITING'.

So yes.

[TD1]

I guess it's your choice to prefer your god to your fellow human beings.

If anything, you have it the wrong way around.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist?

You can draw the conclusion that God does not exist, or that he is capricious/malevolent. Either way, not a faith I'd wish to worship.

In order to join such an organisation, they would first have to change it's basic laws. Why join something for the purpose of making it something that it isn't?

Sometimes the organization as a whole means more to people than one rule they disagree with, so they strive to change that rule to improve the organization. It's called "reform".

In order to join such an organization, they would first have to change it's basic laws. Why join something for the purpose of making it something that it isn't?

To... make it better. Or the world better. Or help people. Y'know... stuff like that? And in the case of stuff that's not central to the identity of the organization,* it doesn't really change the organization's core identity any.

*And discrimination against homosexuality is about as core to christianity as stoning people who wear mixed fabrics to death or celibacy among their priesthood.

So. You would change the basic doctrine of millions of people? You would "Reform" something which is divinely (Supposedly) sent.
You don't understand. Changing scripture is doubting God. A proper, homosexual christian would not try to do that. It is not a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of religion. To deny that religion their (NON HARMING) views on admittance, is discrimination.

[kaijyuu]

I'll not say you didn't make me very angry, but apology accepted.

I'm a rather bad judge of people at times. 'Tis one of my many faults

[EnigmaticHat]

So yes, when I say that I believe that there should be no gay clergy, it isn't because I hate them. It is because the bible specifically says it is wrong. Ergo, I disagree, it is my right to disagree.

I'm not christian. I'm agnostic.

As an agnostic, I don't think you know what that word means.  Agnosticism by definition implies doubt in the bible, because the bible draws its authority from the existence of god and if you are sure, or even confident of the existence of god you are not an agnostic.

Honestly from what you've said so far I would describe you as a non-denominational Christian.  AKA you believe in the core of Christian beliefs but are not participating in organized religion.

Edit: To be clear, this is a word definition issue.  You can believe in whatever you want, I just disagree with your word choice.

[Arx]

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist?

Because He would rather there was evil and free will than neither evil nor free will.

Edit: if this is going to go on, maybe it should be moved to the old religion thread? I'm entirely fine with it stopping, too.

[Yoink]

...

Uh. Hat, he didn't say he agreed with/followed the bible as such- he's saying he doesn't agree with people joining the religion whilst happily breaking some of its main tenets, ' cause that is kinda silly.  That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

Edit: I'm fine with stopping this whole religion discussion asap, too.

[TD1]

I'll not say you didn't make me very angry, but apology accepted.

I'm a rather bad judge of people at times. 'Tis one of my many faults

Really, don't worry about it. Everyone is wrong sometimes.  . Don't blame you at all.

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist?

Because He would rather there was evil and free will than neither evil nor free will.

Ah, but why should we not have Swinburne's Toy World? Are we not happy without free will?

So yes, when I say that I believe that there should be no gay clergy, it isn't because I hate them. It is because the bible specifically says it is wrong. Ergo, I disagree, it is my right to disagree.

I'm not christian. I'm agnostic.

As an agnostic, I don't think you know what that word means.  Agnosticism by definition implies doubt in the bible, because the bible draws its authority from the existence of god and if you are sure, or even confident of the existence of god you are not an agnostic.

Honestly from what you've said so far I would describe you as a non-denominational Christian.  AKA you believe in the core of Christian beliefs but are not participating in organized religion.

Edit: To be clear, this is a word definition issue.  You can believe in whatever you want, I just disagree with your word choice.

I know what agnosticism is. I know what I am. I am not sure, or confident in the existence of God. I don't know where you got that I was.

Sorry Yoink, didn't see your comment. Yes, that is essentially it. 

If you want it to stop, I'm sure I can save being abused for my views for my R.E. class.

[Criptfeind]

I think the point Thedwarfyone is trying to make is the difference between (perhaps for want of a more suitable word) morally incorrect rules people force upon themselves and morally incorrect rules people force on other people. IE: It's fine when people force themselves to follow weird rules so long as they don't force others to do so.

That said, in such a large and important organization as Christianity, I can see the value, morally, of trying to change it from the inside. A hypothetical reformer doesn't have to be a single issue person. They can agree with the vast majority of Christianity and still want to, as a example, change it's stance on gay clergy. And that seems like it would be valid to me.

Of course, that's in a hypothetical world where Christianity doesn't propagate harmful beliefs in the world and outside of itself. In the real world where it does in fact have such a large sway, infiltrating it explicitly to change part of it's dogma is probably also a justifiable action.

I don't actually think this post added anything, since the only important thing I had to say was said by Yoink in the post above me. Don't care, going to post anyway. Ta ta.

[Tack]

Hi, I'm an atheist, and this is a topic which has been responsible for more locked threads than any other topic in the half-decade I've been here.
So ditch.

Seriously, all you fuck off and make a new 'Theism' thread, so that it can absorb the flammability and get locked.
I don't care if it's 'on the rage rails'. You're not doing this here.


If this miffs you, try getting angry at my condescending writing pattern. At least that's clean anger.
I appreciate the efforts made by all the others who also saw the coming storm - however, a forest fire isn't fixed with buckets of water, it's fixed by getting rid of the forest.
When people say 'Here's my two cents but we should probably stop', that's an intellectual community hitting the event horizon.
Now Shoo.

- YES - I see all of you who were ninjad by this post. And you're thinking to yourself 'Gosh, but I just wrote this whole treatise on the nature of agnosticism'.
Copy- Paste- Religion thread. Not here.

[Arx]

I was going to say something, but I'm with Tack.

Legit rage: "If you have a problem with your teachers, please contact [REDACTED]". [REDACTED] is an administrator. [REDACTED] isn't answering my emails about a matter pertaining to administration. [REDACTED] probably wouldn't respond to a problem with teachers, either. [REDACTED] is rage-inducing.

[Dutchling]

Other rage:

Someone disagreed with me on the internet.

I told him he is a faget and that I had sexual intercourse with his mother last night. That's how you do internet debating right?

[TD1]

Sorry Yoink, didn't see your comment. Yes, that is essentially it. 

If you want it to stop, I'm sure I can save being abused for my views for my R.E. class.

I may agree with you, Tack, but not with your delivery. Make a point, and I don't care. Blatantly say it in a vicious, in your face way? That is wrong. Be more polite. Be more discreet.

I'm sorry to any I have offended with this, but really, the way I was treated did make me angry. I'm maybe not at my best right now, and will stop posting in order to cool off.

Again, sorry.

[penguinofhonor]

Not listening to anybody who tries to convince me of anything by telling me to fuck off.

So. You would change the basic doctrine of millions of people? You would "Reform" something which is divinely (Supposedly) sent.
You don't understand. Changing scripture is doubting God. A proper, homosexual christian would not try to do that. It is not a matter of discrimination. It is a matter of religion. To deny that religion their (NON HARMING) views on admittance, is discrimination.

You have no justification for any of this besides dogma. Not everyone shares this view on changing religion. In fact, I'd say the vast majority of people support changing it in some ways. If they don't then they're hypocrites - every single branch of Christianity practiced today is a result of countless changes in how the religion is practiced.

Some people realize that the Bible is not the literal divine word of God. Some people believe that it was divinely inspired, but that the people who wrote it originally included their own biases. These people believe that removing the result of this human bigotry brings Christianity closer to God's unconditional love.

[Yoink]

"Hey guys, can I join the Bridge Club? I uh, don't actually play bridge, but still. Hey, why don't we all play some Monopoly instead?"