Which one of these religions is founded on the most absurd premise?

I have no doubt that scientology is a fraud (sorry if I offended and insulted some people now). I think Sam's argument was basically that the ancient religions are not that much different and have their own flaws, but they happen to be more established, so we accept them more.

 

I say I believe in God quite a bit here. I get pounded for it from time to time.

I rarely get treated like crap for it in real life. Had a couple of occasions in law school where it kinda sorta happened...but I can't claim real persecution or discrimination. Sometimes I wish the Church in America were subject to more of that...because I think it would force people who don't really believe ot stop hijacking the Church for political expediency.

I think most of you say a lot more negative about my faith...or how crazy you think I am...here than you would if we were sitting across from one another having a beer. I try to aim for that level of respect when I'm talking to people here. More integrity in that, anyway, I think.

 

Well said.

 

Has anyone actually called you crazy? I think you are easily one of the most respected posters here, even by people who do not necessarily believe in the same things you do.

 

I was called "sick-brained" by an atheist. She originally got in touch with me because I maintained our Catholic Church's web site and she was offended that our site contained the sentence "We are a faith filled community...". She actually reported us to the city, county and state, because she felt that the sentence conveyed that the actual city our church is in was a "faith filled community" and that offended her.

 

Okay, that sounds crazy (by her).

 

So, I can safely say that every atheist I have ever spoken to on the phone concerning religion is a nut.

 

There are crazy people among atheists, christians, muslims, you name it. The question is how many of these crazy people actually go to what extremes...next question is why, if a lot of it happens in the name of a particular cause.

 

I don't know if anyone has ever directly used MadMax's name in an insult, but the point still gets across.

(correct me if I'm wrong Max!)----->Max believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that he came to this Earth to redeem the lost. Max believes in the teachings of Jesus and attempts to model himself after that. <-----------(correct me if I'm wrong Max!)

Every time people in this section so blatantly insult Christianity, they are in fact blatantly insulting Max. (and me and others on this site) Just because they then say "Oh but you know I respect you MadMax!" doesn't change the fact that they insulted him and his faith.

If I say "being a black woman means you are stupid and a w****" but then say "Oh BaylorBear09 not you, lol, I respect you!" it doesn't change the fact that I insulted her...er...him.

 

What a load of crap.....

So, at the end of the day, it is just you that is sensitive Just.....Max understood and tolerates other view points.

Maybe you need to lighten up Leslie.

DD

 

Yeah I'm the sensitive one on the site DD! What a jokester you are!

Oh waaaaaah don't post that the FBI will shut the site down! OMG pictures of girls!!!!! CRIMINALS!

Oh nooooo! Kids read this site! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

As for tolerating other view points, only a handful of people on this site have demonstrated themselves to be intolerant in their posts, and you are one of them. You find a post of mine where I condemned people of other viewpoints and I'll apologize. I never once condemned you for being an atheist. I criticized you for being a jerk.

 

I understand what you are saying, but to pick up something someone said "where does questioning start and where does condemning/insulting begin"? In my opinion, it should be allowed to discuss/question certain beliefs (including non-belief). Now, most if not all religions inherently state that THEY (the respective religion) have found the ultimate truth. Many of them state that if you do not follow the respective religion, you will eternally burn in hell.

Is that not insulting to those who follow no religion or a different religion as well?

 

I'm not interested in pointing fingers and digging up the past to point to times where I've actually been offended here. It's happened, but that's not the point of why I posted what I posted, above.

 

Easiest answer is to validate their insanity. There are a lot of terror groups who practice no iota of religion or ideology but will shroud themselves in it in order to live among the public.

What sounds more tolerable?

"Hey, we're a group of murderers and arsonists who want to overthrow the government and will use you as collateral damage!"

or

"The government is what's wrong with YOUR life! We've stepped out of the ways of our glorious ancestors. We are the movement chosen by a higher power! (or for the Marxists...We are the next evolution of a perfect society!) Be a part of a greater cause!"

 

I absolutely agree with this. I don't think you will find that I have attempted to prevent discussion of faiths in here and I doubt you will find many posters who can even recall me arguing with them. There have been plenty of discussions on religion on this board that haven't been disrespectful, but very few of them included DD.

 

Right, the idea is that while we may disagree, a certain amount of decorum is appropriate. I don't like the idea that religion is somehow "off-limits" simply because it's religion, but that does not mean that I need to go out of my way to be a jerk about it either.

For what it's worth, I try hard to dissociate the religion from the followers, so that any offense is directed at the actual people performing the actions or speaking the thoughts, not the religion itself.

 

Yes, very true. But why are certain beliefs/causes used a lot more than others to validate the insanity...just coincidence?

 

That's a noble approach, but it is based on the assumption that the problem cannot have (at least some of) its roots in the religion itself. But perhaps it does? It's like you are prohibiting yourself from thinking a thought because it would not be politically correct to think that thought.

 

Simplest answer: cultural tokens are the most impressionable to crazies (plus everyone else) and are easily recognized. Most people digest information in the form of narrative. Why write your own book when you can revise one that's existed for millennia? 90% of the marketing's done for you. There are despots who hail themselves as some spiritual reincarnation of a great national leader/warlord in order to extract an extra ounce of legitimacy.

If we were a technocratic society, we'd have lunatics sprout up on the latest insight of Darwin's or a philosopher’s hidden messages chock full of Glen Beck's magic blackboard. Would it matter if snopes caught it? For snopes to have a chance at working, one would need to have the capacity to understand Darwin or Marx. So all you need is 10%, and the disenfranchised, inexperienced (youth) or uneducated will probably take their word for it. Anything is better than their situation now. The ball starts rolling once inspiration becomes belief.

 

Political correctness has nothing to do with it (I think that may be the first time I've ever been accused of that lol).

Certainly problems can be rooted in the religion, but I'd argue even those are often the product of human interference inasmuch as religion is a man-made political construct. In regards to your crusade (see what I did there ) I do think Islam is probably the easiest religion to contort towards violence, but even that is cultural and political more than theological.

The counter-assumption you seem to make is that religious instruction that can lead to violence undoubtedly does so and is the sole initiator. I don't agree with that.