Forum biased

[livi]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Religion is supposed to be about one personally living a righteous life....not making others do or don't do something you think they should do. In fact, if something's forced, not done willingly, that is bad in the eyes of God.

I am not religious, but I always felt religious belief ought to be something utterly personal. I have always felt that if religion is something dictated by others there is something inherently, paradoxically wrong. If all religious believers blindly follow a few leaders rules, forced to apply other peoples claim of whats right or wrong - then itīs bordering on simple dictatorship. When the Muslim Mullah regard a Danish drawing as a gross insult, issuing death penalties - there is something dangerously wrong if believers without thinking for them selves, blindly go along.

I sense there is a lurking risk with religion being rigidly structured in a strict hierarchy, ruled by a single (or few) persons who claim they have supreme right to dictate whats morally right or wrong.

I am sincerely grateful the Pooop does not have a military force at his non democratic dictatorship. Unfortunately, many Muslim Pooops do. Which in my book presents the biggest threat to world peace currently.

[speeder]

Regardless of your viewpoint, that would be "Pope", not Pooop. Unless you are trying to offend all Catholics by comparing their leader to feces/crap. In which case, never mind.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by speeder
Regardless of your viewpoint, that would be "Pope", not Pooop. Unless you are trying to offend all Catholics by comparing their leader to feces/crap. In which case, never mind.

time to burn the Swedish embassy... teach em a lesson for dissing the Pooop...

[Jims5543]

Originally posted by notfarnow
Jim, that's an even-keeled perspective a lot of us forget about. I think most Christians are tolerant, accepting people... they just don't get as much airtime.

My next door neighbor is clean livin' Baptist. No booze, no swearing... but very tolerant and an all around fantastic guy. I used to hide beer bottles etc when he came over, he saw me doing it once and laughed. He has pretty "hardline" views on homosexuality, marriage and many other things, but he is able to discuss them without foaming at the mouth. He's actually made me a lot more tolerant of his perspective.

I grew up in a hardline home. I lost friends growing up because I did not know any better and my dad was feeding my beliefs and intolerance that I reflected to the neighborhood kids as I was growing up.

One of my friends mother was a lesbian and had a live in girlfriend. My dad went nuts when he learned this and then the problems started. I was pretty much labled a religious nut case when I was in my teens.

As I got older I realized that tolerance was a better policy and regret the friendships I lost when I was younger.

I still have strong moral beliefs and will share them with you if you ask and really want to know about whatI believe, but the are MY beliefs and I cannot expect everyone to believe the same thing.

Is being Gay wrong? Yeah, it is in my church. Do I hate gays? No as a matter of fact I could not care less who you decide to have relations with, its none of my business, if you happen to be gay and we are friends so be it. Its your choice.

Most Christians want everyone to respect them for their beliefs but dont want to give anyone any respect for their beliefes because their beliefs are a sin.

The golden rule seems to have been thrown out the window.

If we model our lives after Christs we are supposed to be tolerant and forgiving. Christ was friends with a prostitute and was friendly to many unsavory people.

I have instilled the golden rule in my son. Even when he jokes about gays like most 13 y/o boys do and most of us guys do I make sure he understands its not right to pick on people for being different.

Oh my god!! I think I might be a liberal christian!!

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Jim Cesiro

Most Christians want everyone to respect them for their beliefs but dont want to give anyone any respect for their beliefes because their beliefs are a sin.

The golden rule seems to have been thrown out the window.

If we model our lives after Christs we are supposed to be tolerant and forgiving. Christ was friends with a prostitute and was friendly to many unsavory people.

+1

that's the Chritianity i was brought up with...
i stopped believing the whole thing, but i kept the values of it...
those values are universal and compatible with just about anything...

[livi]

Originally posted by speeder
Regardless of your viewpoint, that would be "Pope", not Pooop. Unless you are trying to offend all Catholics by comparing their leader to feces/crap. In which case, never mind.

Thatīs part of the defensiveness I try to explain. The misspelling is intentional. I am not trying to offend him as a person - I donīt know the man. Itīs the position he upholds that scares me. Much worse things are said about non religious leaders, but there is seldom such a universe rage among their followers. Name calling has (unfortunately) become very common in for example politics - but you donīt see there followers getting all twisted up in a global rage. I have seen so many different unkind names for your President on this forum. But I do not see any large masses of republicans burning down offices and issuing death penalties.

Religion in my mind should be something personal, something that I believe in no matter what people claim. And something that can not be touched or disturbed by other peoples opinions. I should be safe in my belief without a desperate need to defend it. I should feel above petty name calling and slander. It wouldnīt touch me, I would not care. Feeling safe and secure in my belief.

And why is it that religions seem to give different amounts of that security to their believers ? I rarely hear of Buddhists raging like for example Muslims do today.

So yes, the misspelling was intended and the reaction expected.

[Jeff Higgins]

Back on topic:

[notfarnow]

I still think snowman should admit that Paul Newman is a damn fine lookin man. Establishing that common ground could help bring the two sides of this debate together.

[Jims5543]

I'm all moist just looking at that picture.

How about when he wears a driving suit?

[Jeff Higgins]

Aw, c'mon guys. Newman is downright homely compared to Archie. Probably not nearly as smart and well spoken, either.

[Rodeo]

I managed to dig up a pic of Snowman ... I don't know guys, he's pretty cute.

I'd say if he could take Paul in Judo match, I'd take Snowman over Newman for sweaty gay sex.



But not right away. Friends first.

[livi]

Ah, a young Newman. I would quite possibly pick up the soap.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by svandamme
, making it illegal to bother people with your religious ideas in theory should not be in conflict with freedom of speech

i rate it the same as forbidding some stalker to harras his victim any further over the phone...

freedom of speech , fine, you are free to speak religion in your house and or church, if anyone is intrested, then that somebody can come to your place, or invite you cordially to his place..

I agree. In fact, we should extend this idea further.

If you are gay, you can stay in your little gay meeting place and talk all you want, and if I want to hear your gay meetings I can come to your gay meeting hall and listen. Otherwise you can't say squat in public.

How about anti-war people? We could have an anti-war and a pro-war meeting hall. You can p!ss and moan all you want inside those halls, otherwise keep yer yap shut.

Women!! Oh there's a good one. Want to talk about women's rights? Better stay inside the woman-speak hall.

Just think of it. We could have thousands of buildings where people who think the same can come together and tell each other how right they are. That way no one ever hears something they don't like or is against their personal beliefs.

THAT'S Freedom of Speech I say!!

[notfarnow]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
How about anti-war people? We could have an anti-war and a pro-war meeting hall. You can p!ss and moan all you want inside those halls, otherwise keep yer yap shut.

HA! Already been done!

Widebody911 pointed these out in another thread a while ago.

Free Speech Zones:

[Superman]

Jeff, you're just pretending to have the hots for Archie. Jake, you're right. Newman is a stud. But really though.....who's hotter than Wayne?

Markus, I disagree. And the disagreement is the fundamental disagreement between the "protestant" Christians and the Catholic model. The protestants think that you read the Bible, and decide for yourself what it says. Catholicism, to me, is not so much about somebody mandating a particular interpretation of a Bible passage. It is about whether I am free to "make it up as I go," or whether it is best to utilize the VAST body of historical and theological research done over the past twenty centuries.

To me, the Bible is not a document with the magical feature of having a flexible message depending on what I want it to say, or what it seems to say to me in my relative ignorance. No. It is a document that DOES say what it says and is quite complex and subject to misinterpretations. It is more convenient to make it up as we go, individually. It is much more illuminating and faithful to recognize and accept what it DOES say, regardless of whether that is convenient for me at the moment.

That's the rub between Catholicism and protestantism. Always was. Still is.

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by cool_chick
How about biased toward bi?

That's kinda hot.....

once again CC

[Nathans_Dad]

Yeah! Exactly!! Just put those up all the time!! Think of all the zones...gay zone, christian zone, muslim zone, jewish zone, black zone, white zone, hispanic zone, anti-Bush zone, pro-Bush zone, poor zone, rich zone, the fun never ends!!

And the best part is everyone still has their free speech...as long as they stay in their zone.

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Yeah! , anti-Bush zone, pro-Bush zone,

oh yeah...Bush hates men made of snow

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by Superman
Jeff, you're just pretending to have the hots for Archie. Jake, you're right. Newman is a stud. But really though.....who's hotter than Wayne?

Markus, I disagree. And the disagreement is the fundamental disagreement between the "protestant" Christians and the Catholic model. The protestants think that you read the Bible, and decide for yourself what it says. Catholicism, to me, is not so much about somebody mandating a particular interpretation of a Bible passage. It is about whether I am free to "make it up as I go," or whether it is best to utilize the VAST body of historical and theological research done over the past twenty centuries.

To me, the Bible is not a document with the magical feature of having a flexible message depending on what I want it to say, or what it seems to say to me in my relative ignorance. No. It is a document that DOES say what it says and is quite complex and subject to misinterpretations. It is more convenient to make it up as we go, individually. It is much more illuminating and faithful to recognize and accept what it DOES say, regardless of whether that is convenient for me at the moment.

That's the rub between Catholicism and protestantism. Always was. Still is.

Not to hijack the thread, but I would disagree. Of course I am Protestant so there you go...

The difference to me is that Protestants believe that God made the Bible for all. Everyone can read it and God will speak to each person as he or she learns about him. I don't need the Pope to dictate to me what the Bible says, I can read it for myself. Of course my Pastor is trained in theology and has more knowledge about it than I, that's why I go to church and listen to a sermon each Sunday. I don't need a priest to pray to God for me, I can do it myself. I don't have to pray to Mary or John or Jude or Matthew to talk to God for me, I can talk to God myself.

Both Catholics and Protestants rely on clergy to help them interpret the Bible. My personal experience is this: My wife was raised Catholic. She went to mass every Sunday, she did her confirmation classes, we went to Pre-cana classes before we were married, etc. She was a good Catholic. Know what? She never knew what the Bible actually said until she began going to a Protestant Bible study. I was raised Baptist, we decided to go with the Methodist church as a compromise. We are both very happy there. She started going to a weekly Bible study about a year ago and has amazed me and herself with how much more she knows about the Bible and how much closer her relationship with God is. Of course Catholics can do the same, there are Catholic Bible study groups as well. My main issue with Catholicism is that by being so regimented it allows people to fall into the trap of thinking that if they just go to church and take communion and listen to the priest then they are good to go. Many of them don't ever pursue a personal relationship with God...they figure that's what the priest is for.

Just MHO, I have no problem with Catholics at all and think the Catholic/Protestant argument is kinda stupid. But, you brought it up.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I agree. In fact, we should extend this idea further.

If you are gay, you can stay in your little gay meeting place and talk all you want, and if I want to hear your gay meetings I can come to your gay meeting hall and listen. Otherwise you can't say squat in public.

How about anti-war people? We could have an anti-war and a pro-war meeting hall. You can p!ss and moan all you want inside those halls, otherwise keep yer yap shut.

Women!! Oh there's a good one. Want to talk about women's rights? Better stay inside the woman-speak hall.

Just think of it. We could have thousands of buildings where people who think the same can come together and tell each other how right they are. That way no one ever hears something they don't like or is against their personal beliefs.

THAT'S Freedom of Speech I say!!

anti war is an opinion
it's not a group of people with a unique trait

gay folks can be in the subway, standing right besides you and you wouldn't even know it

just like you could have somebody stand next to you who is Christian , and you wouldn't know it

i'm also not saying that it should be hidden
i have no problem seeign 2 men kiss
i don't want to join em , but that's doesnt' mean i find it problematic to watch

same for a Christian nun , or a priest in gear , or a devode catholic with a gold cros necklace...

those things do not actively affect others.

the problem is when one group attacks the other group in public, and states they are sinfull

just like Christian fanatics who openly go after gay folks
or even worse, come up with programs that prey on gay people in emotional peril, to pretty much brainwash them into thinkingthey have a disease...


my suggestions in no way advocate that everybody should stay in his corner, i do not advocate "appartheid"

i advocate tolerance, and not harrasing one another with ones personal convictions...to have some ethics and tolerance as opposed to fanaticism

being anti war , is not a personal attack on anyone
being anti gay , is a personal attack on many
so is anti christian , anti muslim , anti jew or even anti women

don't twist things ND...it just prooves what i said initially
and that is that such thing would scare religious folks

i also said, that it would in theory not be needed
if only the religions would apply the ethics that are allready there from within.... Christ did not teach anyone to be a biggot... he did not teach hate, anger, and judgemental thinking...