World of Pageantry

World of Pageantry

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:18 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1819
Location: Amory
BGRtumpet wrote:
Ex Nihilo wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
tSz42 wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
People are still paying attention to the Catholic Church? Why? :?


I find this offensive. If you don't like the Catholic religion or its teachings, fine. But, keep it to yourself.

No. :| Simple as that.

Let's compromise. I'll keep my dislike of Christianity and Catholicism to myself... but only once those who *DO* like the Catholic religion and its teachings keep that to themselves also. Stop picketing abortion clinics and planned parenthood and porn stores; practice whatever faith you want to but stop forcing it upon others.

Once religions stop forcing themselves upon others and trying to tell everyone else how to live I will stop protesting religions. Until then, no dice.


no one will... even though that was a major point in one of Jesus' sermons...


But you know its rather hypocritical to say ill stop when you stop. Like a little kid...If you hafta protest the intolerance of the more radical elements of the church, but why argue about the afterlife. After all we can't assuredly know either way, and if it makes people feel better than is it really a bad thing?


And btw i love the jeff dunham comment.


what you have to see is this: christians believe that we're saving you all from a horrible fate. it's how we go about it sometimes that really gets me. intentions are good... but the ends don't always justify the means. and, by coming on too strong and seething with animosity, we actually do exactly the opposite of what we want.

_________________
Image

Cybernations


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:11 am 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
BGRtumpet wrote:
But you know its rather hypocritical to say ill stop when you stop. Like a little kid...

Not at all. It's a matter of cause and effect, not simultaneous action. Imagine, instead, someone poking you with a stick. You wouldn't be reacting at all if there wasn't someone poking you with a stick.

Stop poking me with the stick (forcing your religious views AND morals upon me through legislation, social pressure, and outright aggression) and I will stop reacting.


BGRtumpet wrote:
If you hafta protest the intolerance of the more radical elements of the church, but why argue about the afterlife. After all we can't assuredly know either way, and if it makes people feel better than is it really a bad thing?

Well... hmm, how can I respond to this without turning it into a gigantic metaphysical analysis?

Arguing over the existence or non-existence of god, heaven, hell, or anything else of the supernatural spiritual realm is not my primary concern. I, of course, do not believe in any of it. I feel that people who do believe are deluding themselves for the sake of happiness (“Hope is the only bee that makes honey without flowers.” --Robert Ingersoll), but that is their right; I myself cannot believe, and it didn't make me happy when I tried to: I am too much of a logician, I need hard facts. But I make no claims that my life is any "happier" than those of the devout; it's just a matter of personal choice at how you view the universe.

The problem that arises is this: in addition to "making people feel better" (as you put it), those same teachings are used to install fear, control people and punish those who don't believe in them. They make the believers "feel better," but then too many believers make the non-believers feel worse. A person who has a fear of sinning and going to hell in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is when that very personal fear affects and influences how he treats others (which, unfortunately, is what frequently happens).

People using their fear of god or hell to try and control the actions and lives of others: there's the problem. If person "X" did not have such a fear of god/hell, he likely would not be trying to convince/force person "Z" to live life in a certain particular way to avoid the same fate. Now it is an issue, and the existence of god, heaven, and hell are all valid targets for argument.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:18 am 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Ex Nihilo wrote:
what you have to see is this: christians believe that we're saving you all from a horrible fate. it's how we go about it sometimes that really gets me. intentions are good... but the ends don't always justify the means.

And this is exactly why the fabled "Golden Rule" ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is a terrible, terrible rule that should never be obeyed.

I do not feel the need to be saved from a horrible fate. I do not want others to try and save me from a horrible fate. Many Christians, however, believe the exact opposite. Since they would want to be saved, they treat others as if the others want to be saved, too.

Never, never treat others how you would want to be treated. We are not the same people. Take a moment to find out how they want to be treated before making any large actions that would affect them (obviously we're not talking about something as minor as smiling and nodding as you pass a stranger on the street; however you've probably noticed that not everyone wishes to be smiled and nodded at, so it kinda applies even to the little things, too).

The TRUE Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:18 pm 
Offline
Rookie
Rookie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:15 pm
Posts: 120
Location: Santa Clara CA
Hostrauser wrote:
Stop poking me with the stick (forcing your religious views AND morals upon me through legislation, social pressure, and outright aggression) and I will stop reacting.


I think the "stick" is a misleading metaphor...It implies that there is a danger to your well-being. In most cases I think the attempts at assimilation are relatively harmless (or are hold-overs from the past coughmarriagecough) and just ought be ignored.

In regards to the idea heaven/hell etc. I have to say that like you I cannot logically (and thus cannot) accept their existence. But if it makes others happy then leave them be....everyone has the right "to pursue happiness" their own way. If they impinge on your rights then assail their infringement of your rights, but don't wreak their (delusional) happiness.

_________________
Wilcox Black and Gold Regime (NCBA)

Trumpet--Benge CG

'05 Mask of Zorro
'06 Rhapsody (in blue)
'07 "Symphony 99" (music from Beethoven's 9th and Dvořák 's 9th)
'08 Jurassic Park


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:23 pm 
Offline
New Recruit
New Recruit

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Long Beach, CA
Hostrauser wrote:
abuse at abortion clinics to more subtle creation of "laws" defining marriage to a Christian ideal in order to prevent homosexual couples (and, not very long ago at all, interracial couples) from marrying (as if marriage wasn't a feature of every culture and religion on Earth; and as if the Christians were the first to invent marriage and have the right to tell everyone else how they must do it; and as if the laws of this country aren't supposed to be designed with the rights of EVERYBODY in mind, not just the rights of those who play by the rules of Religion "X"; the temerity!).
I know where you're getting at for the last point (not that agree with you) but I don't know of any religion in history that sanctified gay marriage, outisde of the liberal wings of the Episcopalian Church. Although, I guess you're right about the Christian ideal of marriage is what's being forced down our throats and we won't be truly free until polygamy is finally allowed...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:12 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
BGRtumpet wrote:
I think the "stick" is a misleading metaphor...It implies that there is a danger to your well-being.

Uh... there is. Okay, sure, we've moved a step or two beyond burning people at the stake, but freedom of thought and action are under near-constant attack.


BGRtumpet wrote:
But if it makes others happy then leave them be....everyone has the right "to pursue happiness" their own way. If they impinge on your rights then assail their infringement of your rights, but don't wreak their (delusional) happiness.

I do not go around preaching my beliefs to anyone unsolicited (i.e., outside of the context of an already begun philosophical or religious conversation). But I'm not going to remain silent in a conversation about religion just because my views my damage their fragile grasp on faith and belief. If their belief is that susceptible to insurrection they shouldn't be participating in religious conversations.

Bottom line: if everyone agrees to talk about religion, I'm not going to hold-back my viewpoints for fear of destroying someone's "illusion."


Eric B wrote:
I don't know of any religion in history that sanctified gay marriage

True, but then again, up until about 50 years ago you could have said the same thing about interracial marriage.

Although, while it may not count as religious endorsement, the ancient Greeks were fairly open and accepting about homosexual relationships.

It's not that the gay marriage advocates dream of a day where homosexuals can "invade" churches and force churches to marry them against their religious moral code; that is patently absurd. But marriage is and never has been solely a spiritual or religious event: it is also a legal one. And homosexuals have every right to that LEGAL agreement that heterosexuals do.

There are NO valid reasons why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to go to a county courthouse, have a justice of the peace say a few words (if even that), and sign the marriage license allowing them all the same rights as anyone else, from health insurance to power-of-attorney to tax filing.


Eric B wrote:
Although, I guess you're right about the Christian ideal of marriage is what's being forced down our throats and we won't be truly free until polygamy is finally allowed...

I detect a note of sarcasm.

So, what's wrong with polygamy? Seriously. Just because it's not your thing, no one should be allowed to do it? Many other cultures have operated with polygamy for thousands of years. I myself know several "triads" that work just fine with one guy having two "wives" and each wife having a husband and a wife of her own (all the of the triads I have personally interacted with have been one man and two women, so that's the example I use).

My stance is that whatever interpersonal relationships a group of consenting adults wants to have is perfectly okay with me and, at the very least, should be legally recognized by the government if not any church.

Note to anyone and everyone: please re-read the bolded phrases above before introducing any vapid and brain-dead arguments about how this would/could lead to adults legally marrying animals or molesting children.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:31 pm 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1819
Location: Amory
Hostrauser wrote:
BGRtumpet wrote:
I think the "stick" is a misleading metaphor...It implies that there is a danger to your well-being.

Uh... there is. Okay, sure, we've moved a step or two beyond burning people at the stake, but freedom of thought and action are under near-constant attack.


that's an issue with the people, not the beliefs.

_________________
Image

Cybernations


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:41 pm 
Offline
Veteran
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:30 pm
Posts: 433
Location: SoCal
:vomit:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:39 am 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Cymtech, thank you for that useful and enlightening post. You have greatly contributed to this thread.

Ex Nihilo wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
BGRtumpet wrote:
I think the "stick" is a misleading metaphor...It implies that there is a danger to your well-being.

Uh... there is. Okay, sure, we've moved a step or two beyond burning people at the stake, but freedom of thought and action are under near-constant attack.


that's an issue with the people, not the beliefs.

Yeah, I have those too. Many of my issues are with the practitioners of the faiths and not the faiths themselves. But then, I also believe that the truest test of a faith is not in the printed word but in the actions of its followers, the interpretation. And, as a result, I feel Christians themselves should be doing more to counteract/stop those performing intolerance/hate in the name of Christ just as I feel Muslims should be doing more to counteract/stop those performing intolerance/hate in the name of Mohammed.

And yes, some people are trying. But there's a way to go.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mohandas Ghandi


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:53 am 
Offline
New Recruit
New Recruit
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:44 am
Posts: 26
Location: D-town, CA
if i may add a religious standpoint to all this, if you look in the bible, more specifically the book of revelation, it says that you CANNOT add anything new to the word of God. that is exactly what this former member of the hitler youth pope is doing. he himself is committing one of the biggest sins of all time.

_________________
you are not what you think you are. I am what you want to be.

vic diaz
lead trumpet cerritos college orchestra
lead trumpet CSULA wind ensemble
warren high school class of '08


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:29 am 
Offline
New Recruit
New Recruit

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:38 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Long Beach, CA
Hostrauser wrote:
Eric B wrote:
I don't know of any religion in history that sanctified gay marriage

True, but then again, up until about 50 years ago you could have said the same thing about interracial marriage.


Other than comparing homosexuality to a race (which would probably piss me off were I not the Whitest Man in America) there have been few religions that preached this. Marrying people from other religions has been an issue, but not usually race.

Quote:
Although, while it may not count as religious endorsement, the ancient Greeks were fairly open and accepting about homosexual relationships.
There is a Woody Allen line about not trusting anyone who advocates porking young boys, but I can't find it. Either way, while the Greeks didn't mind people switching dugouts once in a while, to them the thought of two men or two women acting as husband and wife would be very silly.

Quote:
But marriage is and never has been solely a spiritual or religious event: it is also a legal one.


True, but marriage and the societal enforcement of the nuclear family has been more about the regulation of reproduction than the legal recognition of the power of love. To me gay marriage isn't a sin, it's silly, the ultimate playing house, and going beyond tolerance to acceptance.

To that end, it seems to me that homosexuality is nature's birth control, since we as a species have done pretty well in fighting off everything else its thrown at us. If the purpose of being gay is to prevent engaging in the procreative process, then involving them in a legal mechanism for regulating it seems rather illogical.

Quote:
And homosexuals have every right to that LEGAL agreement that heterosexuals do.

There are NO valid reasons why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to go to a county courthouse, have a justice of the peace say a few words (if even that), and sign the marriage license allowing them all the same rights as anyone else, from health insurance to power-of-attorney to tax filing.


Outside of the tax filling, I believe one can do pretty much all of these things without getting married in the first place. Personally, I'm against the government getting involved in any marriage, gay or straight, so letting more people get married to me is a bad idea. I'd also, in lieu of eliminating it all together, would raise the legal age to about 25. I'd also revise divorce law so that emotion (which benefits women way over men, especially in this state) would be eliminated from terminating a marriage agreement.

Quote:
So, what's wrong with polygamy?


I take it you've never been married before. :)

Quote:
Seriously. Just because it's not your thing, no one should be allowed to do it? Many other cultures have operated with polygamy for thousands of years.


The purpose of which was to greatly increase a group's population, usually for nefarious political purposes. This is why Mohammed and Joeseph Smith conned their followers into engaging in it.

Quote:
I myself know several "triads" that work just fine with one guy having two "wives" and each wife having a husband and a wife of her own (all the of the triads I have personally interacted with have been one man and two women, so that's the example I use).


You hang out with some pretty freaky people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:55 am 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:24 am
Posts: 2490
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Hostrauser wrote:
My stance is that whatever interpersonal relationships a group of consenting adults wants to have is perfectly okay with me and, at the very least, should be legally recognized by the government if not any church.

Note to anyone and everyone: please re-read the bolded phrases above before introducing any vapid and brain-dead arguments about how this would/could lead to adults legally marrying animals or molesting children.


This statement is the "meat" of the issue in my mind. Historically politicians have ulterior religious motives and religious leaders have ulterior political motives. In both cases, those motives typically center around power and control of a group of people. Laws reinforce the politician; the word of a God or gods/goddesses reinforce the priests and priestess. In either case the line between the political and religious process is easily blurred and abused. History repeats itself over and over in this regard.

Abortion, polygamy, homosexuality, minorities ... all of these are areas where politics and religion clash, and all of these are areas that neither side can seem to keep to themselves. Both politics and religion can be corrupt in their views of what is "right" or "wrong", especially when it means control or power.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Sins?
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:10 pm 
Offline
Support Staff
Support Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 6:46 am
Posts: 7936
Location: West Allis, WI
Eric B wrote:
Other than comparing homosexuality to a race (which would probably piss me off were I not the Whitest Man in America)

Why, because you view race as an involutary attribute of life and sexual orientation as a voluntary attribute? That's a whole 'nother can of worms, since I do not agree that sexual orientation is always a voluntary decision.

Regardless, my main point was that it's just more evidence of society(-ies) refusing to accept people for who they are and trying to force people to be what society wants them to be.


Eric B wrote:
Marrying people from other religions has been an issue, but not usually race.

:shock:

Are you kidding me? Less than a hundred years ago, it was common practice for people to be forbidden to marry outside their social class, even within their own race. A black man caught with a white woman was a terminal offense, and not just in the deep South.

How you can possibly believe that inter-racial relationships haven't really been an issue just flabbergasts me.


Eric B wrote:
True, but marriage and the societal enforcement of the nuclear family has been more about the regulation of reproduction than the legal recognition of the power of love. To me gay marriage isn't a sin, it's silly, the ultimate playing house, and going beyond tolerance to acceptance.

To that end, it seems to me that homosexuality is nature's birth control, since we as a species have done pretty well in fighting off everything else its thrown at us. If the purpose of being gay is to prevent engaging in the procreative process, then involving them in a legal mechanism for regulating it seems rather illogical.

So marriage should only be available to those who can provide viable offspring? My wife and I aren't ever going to have any children; should we not be married?

"the purpose of being gay is to prevent engaging in the procreative process" --- what sort of nonsense is that? I thought the purpose of any relationship is to be with someone you love and care for, regardless of gender. Gay people don't get in relationships just to spite the "breeding public."

Eric B wrote:
hostrauser wrote:
And homosexuals have every right to that LEGAL agreement that heterosexuals do.

There are NO valid reasons why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to go to a county courthouse, have a justice of the peace say a few words (if even that), and sign the marriage license allowing them all the same rights as anyone else, from health insurance to power-of-attorney to tax filing.


Outside of the tax filling, I believe one can do pretty much all of these things without getting married in the first place.

Nope, you're wrong. That's specifically why I brought those items up.

I have two mothers-in-law and no father-in-law. My wife and I have about 10x the rights that my two mothers-in-law do. Despite all the hubbub over domestic partner benefits that is in the news, it's not universal and does not always cover all the things that other insurance plans do.

If my wife's biological mother were in a tragic accident, the right to decide all of her medical treatment would fall to her daughter (my wife), not her partner of almost 30 years. Because while marriage outranks blood, blood still outranks "unofficial" marriage, including domestic partnership.


Eric B wrote:
Personally, I'm against the government getting involved in any marriage, gay or straight, so letting more people get married to me is a bad idea. I'd also, in lieu of eliminating it all together, would raise the legal age to about 25. I'd also revise divorce law so that emotion (which benefits women way over men, especially in this state) would be eliminated from terminating a marriage agreement.

So, wait... you're against the government getting involved in marriage, and yet all your ideas for "improving" the institution of marriage involve regulations that would need to be government enforced? :?

Eric B wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
So, what's wrong with polygamy?


I take it you've never been married before. :)

I'll assume that was a stab at humor (since I'm married).

I defer to a female comedian (whose name I cannot currently recall) who put it best when she said: "Throughout history there have been numerous societies that endorsed polygamy, but only in the case of men having multiple wives. You never hear about a woman having multiple husbands. This is not due to patriarchal society structures, but rather due to the fact that while there are a thousand reasons for a man to want multiple wives, why on earth would any woman want a second husband?"

Eric B wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
Seriously. Just because it's not your thing, no one should be allowed to do it? Many other cultures have operated with polygamy for thousands of years.

The purpose of which was to greatly increase a group's population, usually for nefarious political purposes. This is why Mohammed and Joeseph Smith conned their followers into engaging in it.

That's a bit of a logical fallacy. Just because Group X did Y hundreds (or thousands) of years ago for purpose Z does not mean that purpose Z is the only reason to do Y.


Eric B wrote:
Hostrauser wrote:
I myself know several "triads" that work just fine with one guy having two "wives" and each wife having a husband and a wife of her own (all the of the triads I have personally interacted with have been one man and two women, so that's the example I use).


You hang out with some pretty freaky people!

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, then, since these are not the people I would consider the "freaks" out of those I have met. They're middle-aged, middle-class, white collar people with mainstream careers and simply some not-mainstream lifestyle choices.

But if that's all it takes to freak you out, I've got stories that could make you choke. :cool:


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:23 am 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:12 am
Posts: 1819
Location: Amory
i guess this issue could be summed up like this:
who the hell are we, mortals, to make immortal law?

_________________
Image

Cybernations


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:30 am 
Offline
Drum Major
Drum Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:24 am
Posts: 2490
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Ex Nihilo wrote:
i guess this issue could be summed up like this:
who the hell are we, mortals, to make immortal law?

You are unworthy. Bummer.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
  http://www.worldofpageantry.com Copyright © 1996 - 2006 Email:  admin@worldofpageantry.com  

Site design and maintenance by Dave Schaafsma at Dave's Web Dynamics