[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
didn't know I had to.

I've was waiting for the reasoning and examples to back your position. Not fake indignation at nonexistent personal attacks.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, you did.

No. No, I didn't. Did you miss this?

Originally posted by vmpaul:
When I use the term 'you' or 'your', I'm speaking in a generic sense. Nothing personal was meant to be implied. I'll try to be more general.

The only comment I've made about you personally is that your experience with religion isn't universal. I also provide the reasoning and examples to back that assertion. I've made that point twice now. Both times you've twisted the debate to be about your experience and about you. Either you can't or won't comprehend the distinction.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Nope. not true. You're the one who stated in an absolute that religion is forced upon people, such was not my experience so I offered a counter to that absolutism, based on my own experience. That's not avoiding debate, that's directly engaging the debate...it's just disagreeing with your absolutist assertion.

That's a complete misrepresentation of my position. My position regarding religious conversion never mentioned absoltuism. Stop putting words in my mouth. Again, from my previous post:

....As I stated above, you and I, luckily, live a in time where there is a reasonable separation between church and state. Luckier still if you live in a modern western society where the distinction is codified in law. Historically, and for the majority of mankind's existence that is not true. Also not true for large portion of the worlds population today. The political battle between the fundamentalists and secularists is the modern day equivalent of forced acquiescence. Civil Rights are being threatened and knowledge is being suppressed by desire to codify religious dogma.

I've acknowledged your (and others) experience and how it differs from the historical examples I've mentioned. My statement about your experience is my recognition of that reality. That isn't an absolutist position. I don't appreciate you twisting my meaning. If comprehension is a problem, if I'm not clear or if you're confused, ask me to clarify. If you're genuine in your desire to debate it's the polite thing to do.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
That's your opinion. I've addressed it by pointing out where I disagree with your opinion. You're content to dispense with relgion entirely because of how its been abused, and I made the analogy of how that's an improper response to abuse....the same would not be done with doctors or teachers.

I've addressed your comparison of religion vs. doctors or teachers. I believe the comparison isn't valid for the reasons I stated. I've been waiting for your counter.

And again with the false representation of my position. I never said we should dispense with religion entirely. Just reduce it's influence. Strengthen the separation of church and state. Not lesson it.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
You misinterpret disagreement as not addressing your arguments. You simply don't wish to hear opposition because you are so absolutist you cannot conceive that any conclusions other than your own narrow ones are valid. You are so condescending as to aloofly think only you have access to truth, and everyone else is self-delusory.

Automatic nay-saying of another's position isn't debate. It's simple contradiction. Neither is twisting my meaning to defend a position I never addressed.

And again with the personal attacks. How many is that now?

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And thats...ok. For you. But everyone in the world is not you. Many of us find meaning and purpose in religion. Just because you cannot conceive of that for yourself does not give you the right to deny I can find that peace for myself.

You wish to live in that absolutist world, but you are wanting to eliminate religion, which is as dangerous as you believe religion is doing to others because you want to mold the thinking of others to your will and concept.

I've stated my position (in both posts to you and wolfen). I've provided my reasoning and examples, both historical and contemporary, that I believe support my position. None of them attempted to attack you or your experience in a personal matter. It may make you comfortable to label me, insult me and to categorize my positions as unreasonable and rigid. All that shows is that you're unwilling to let your arguments stand as your defense and your only option is to cut me down to your level.

I've had to, twice now, take the time to respond to your personal attacks and misrepresentations instead of debating the topic at hand. It's a transparent attempt to avoid defending your position.

I'm not interested in debating about you or me. I also don't think this thread deserves to devolve into personal attacks and get locked. Not after all these posts. It's tiresome and I'm just not interested. I'm always ready to hear someone's position on the topic. If you won't or can't do that, then please don't respond.

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Haha, you just prove to me again and again how moronic you are. Post something NEW that ISN'T a petty insult, and respond to posts addressing you (or can you not think of a response to my reply a page or two ago that won't perpetuate your air of idiocy?).

No man or divine divinity can prove
or disprove beyond doubt to all anything.
Everything is up for grabs, because thats
the way man thinks - in dualities.

As all life has this dual aspect, a possibility
of being either black or white at every turn.
It is mans greatest gift from nature, for the
human mind can envision an opposite to
every idea he can dream.

The pinnacle of mans ideas is god, It is
the most potent image he can imagine.
But because he can imagine an apex
and gives birth to a book of morales on
the subject does not mean it exists
outside of his imagination and
megalomaniacal ego.

I know the world is enigmatic and very
confusing because it is so very simple.
Because it is so very simple man must
breath life into this prosaic world he
inhabits and animate it with purpose
and anthropomorphic magic. Superstition
by the mass always follows and is the
backlash to creation.



As an artist, I understand this process.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
No man or divine divinity can prove
or disprove beyond doubt to all anything.
Everything is up for grabs, because thats
the way man thinks - in dualities.

One can't prove anything? You're wrong. If you want me to explain it to you, I will.

Originally posted by benign:
As all life has this dual aspect, a possibility
of being either black or white at every turn.
It is mans greatest gift from nature, for the
human mind can envision an opposite to
every idea he can dream.

"Gift" from nature? You can attempt poetry if you wish (although your randomly-enjambed lines are far from it), but if you're trying to perpetuate your atheistic views, at least try to be consistent and don't personify nature.

Originally posted by benign:
The pinnacle of mans ideas is god, It is
the most potent image he can imagine.
But because he can imagine an apex
and gives birth to a book of morales on
the subject does not mean it exists
outside of his imagination and
megalomaniacal ego.

Going by your previous writing, one could argue the opposite: Just because he wants to doubt something that hasn't been proven or disproven immediately because it's not "logical" does not mean it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by benign:
I know the world is enigmatic and very
confusing because it is so very simple.
Because it is so very simple man must
breath life into this prosaic world he
inhabits and animate it with purpose
and anthropomorphic magic. Superstition
by the mass always follows and is the
backlash to creation.

As an artist, I understand this process.

"Simple"? Compared to what? Don't be cryptic if you want to get a point across. It is "simple" when compared to what? How much science do you even know? You're not an artist, unless you consider randomly throwing paint on canvas "art" (I know it's been done before, but while it may have been unique to put it into a gallery, it certainly wasn't good). Your ideas are just jumbled around in an ambiguous manner (that I'm sure you feel is very clever), ofttimes declaring things true or false that you obviously don't have enough knowledge on to make an intelligent call. Your writing is a simulacrum of intelligence.

[benign]

Stradlater, you appraisal of my words
or your definition of art shows me more
than you care to admit about yourself.

Cannot be creative and a fence-sitter.
Try having a creative outburst, rather than
just always refuting others - it's really
exhilarating.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
Stradlater, you appraisal of my words
or your definition of art shows me more
than you care to admit about yourself.

More than I care to admit about myself? Care to elaborate? Because I know the difference between art that is emotionally and intellectually-stimulating and art that is pretentious?

Originally posted by benign:
Cannot be creative and a fence-sitter.
Try having a creative outburst, rather than
just always refuting others - it's really
exhilarating.

First of all, just because I'm not attempting to be creative in this thread (as you apparently are) does not mean I am not elsewhere. I have yet to see creativity from you; you call yourself an artist, where is your portfolio?

And as far as your "exhilarating" creative orgasms go, as it's been said before, it's rather masturbatory in its practice (I guess no one says that creativity has to be enjoyable to others, and I guess no one says that creativity has to be good, but there is quite a difference between someone who is very creative and someone who is hardly creative).

AGAIN: I still find it funny when you avoid defending your past arguments after refutations; at least in this post you admit that I have refuted your poor arguments.

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:

No man or divine divinity can prove
or disprove beyond doubt to all anything.
Everything is up for grabs, because thats
the way man thinks - in dualities.

One can't prove anything? You're wrong. If you want me to explain it to you, I will.

No man or divine divinity can prove
or disprove beyond doubt to all -
anything? - because there is always its
opposite, however far fetched that
antipodal position may seem.

[benign]

where is your portfolio fence-sitter ?

Do you argue the earth is 4-6,000
years old, do you argue there is no
aerial view to discover either way.
Or do you argue for the sake of
arguing ?

[wolfen]

You really stirred the kitten's nest now, Stradlater!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
No man or divine divinity can prove
or disprove beyond doubt to all -
anything? - because there is always its
opposite, however far fetched that
antipodal position may seem.

Although it's really unrelated to proving and disproving the existence of a god, you CAN prove certain things beyond a doubt. You can prove the following negative: benign did not have (exactly) ten posts in this thread.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
where is your portfolio fence-sitter ?

I never claimed to be an artist, you did, so it's up to you to display some creativity, not me.

Originally posted by benign:
Do you argue the earth is 4-6,000
years old, do you argue there is no
aerial view to discover either way.
Or do you argue for the sake of
arguing ?

My views on these things have been posted earlier in this thread. And I argue for what is right, and against what is wrong. In this case, I argue against you.

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
... Your writing is a simulacrum of intelligence.

As an artist, simulacrum of life
is what I create. Everything man
makes is artificial.
But as a nay sayer and uncreative
fence-sitter, what do you know but
nay.


"I argue against you." - Save it for
'private messages' and I'll meet you
for a chat or a brawl - you choose.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
As an artist, simulacrum of life
is what I create. Everything man
makes is artificial.
But as a nay sayer and uncreative
fence-sitter, what do you know but
nay.

Still waiting for that portfolio. And "simulacrum of life"? Do you realize what you're saying?

Originally posted by benign:
"I argue against you." - Save it for
'private messages' and I'll meet you
for a chat or a brawl - you choose.

"In this case," meaning this thread, and probably others to come. I argue in the nature of this thread and the topics brought up; if you bring up poor arguments, I will refute them; this is a public thread, not a private argument.

[benign]

I think it is personal - In another
thread you wanted me banned
from this forum. What stone
have I moved that has revealed
such reveling gayety in you.


For a need - god was born.

Is the earth made by a giant
all-powerful man who lives
in the sky and offers eternal
happiness to those that don't
question his command not to
question ?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benign:
Try having a creative outburst, rather than
just always refuting others - it's really
exhilarating.

You first.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by wolfen:
vmpaul,

You appear in print to be a very bitter and angry sort. You should be careful not to make the same mistakes you accuse of others.

I am neither christian nor religious.

Secondarily, you have a lot of misconceptions and make many sweeping generalizations about religion which do not reflect the majority of religions, religious leaders, or religious individuals.

I can only suppose these serve to fuel the fire in your own belly. You have some things you need to resolve with yourself and your struggle for a meaningful life. The first step to forging your own path is always to critique what constrains you.

But you should understand that these ideas which constrain you do not constrain others equally. That's because they're your ideas, or the ideas that you have had impressed upon you. You will have to find you own way out to reality.

In simpler, more concrete terms: You are stuck on certain views and unable to see other angles objectively at this time. It would be meaningless for me to continue discussing these matters with you as a result. The screaming from your own heart and mind is drowning out other rational perspectives.

I am not interested in "winning" some argument on religion with you. I was hoping only to provide a little insight into the problems you addressed. But you don't want insight right now, you want to fight. So have at it. But I'm not interested in that anymore.

Good luck in your quest,

wolfen

More personal attacks and amateur psychoanalysis? Your opinions regarding me are neither relevant to the topic or interesting to me in the slightest.

I am neither an atheist nor anti-religious. Not anti-religious to the extent that you and others would label me.

I've stated my position. I've provided my reasoning and examples, both historical and contemporary, that I believe support my position. None of them attempted to attack you or your experience in a personal matter. It may make you comfortable to label me, insult me and to categorize my positions as unreasonable and rigid. All that shows is that you're unwilling to let your arguments stand as your defense and your only option is to cut me down.

It isn't about 'winning' an argument. It's about a free exchange of diverse opinions. It's a debate. Nothing more. I WILL take your comments as capitulation though, since you seem to offer up nothing to defend your position but insults and amateur psychological evaluations.

I have a position. I defend that position with reasoning and examples. I expect you to respond the same. Not by calling someone names or resorting to personal attacks.

If THAT is the extent of your intellectual rigor (in answer to MY posts which logically deal with YOUR arguments) regarding this debate, then I can justifiably walk away knowing that you are safe and comfortable behind the walls of a self-imposed ignorance.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
I think it is personal - In another
thread you wanted me banned
from this forum. What stone
have I moved that has revealed
such reveling gayety in you.

"Reveling gayety" is redundant (and even more obviously not the motivation). What's personal? Your artwork? At least tell us just what kind of art you do, and please don't tell me it's poetry or prose

As far as the banning goes, you tend to revoltingly attack large groups of people (with name-calling, poor arguments, et alii), which I would consider an offense.

Originally posted by benign:
For a need - god was born.

Is the earth made by a giant
all-powerful man who lives
in the sky and offers eternal
happiness to those that don't
question his command not to
question ?

Are you asking me if I believe this...or what? What's the point of this question, other than recycling again what you've been saying all along? (If you really wanted to know how I felt on all these matters, you'd take my suggestion and travel back a few pages in this thread)

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Still waiting for that portfolio. And "simulacrum of life"? Do you realize what you're saying?

As a sculptor, yes I do know what
I am saying - do you ?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
As a sculptor, yes I do know what
I am saying - do you ?

I'm thinking you still don't know all that "simulacrum" implies.

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I'm thinking you still don't know all that "simulacrum" implies.

Does he ?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
Does he ?

Cryptic, as usual. Please elaborate: what does Baudrillard�a philosopher I can't say I'm terribly familiar with�have to do with this?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by benign:
As a sculptor,

And what you sculpt is brown in color, as is about waist deep by now.

yes I do know what
I am saying - do you ?

This is just a pretentious way of saying "I know you are but what am I"

100% silly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Cryptic, as usual.

benign and Ronnie James Dio have a lot in common.

They both like to muddy their waters to appear deep.

And both come off looking silly in the end.

They are both just two rainbows in the dark.

[benign]

Don't question me - always love me
and at your death, I will awaken thee
and together you may live in an
unquestioning limbo for all eternity.

I am the law, live the life I tell you
to live and you will be rewarded in
an unquestioning limbo for all eternity.

You are one of many rebirths.
You cannot die but are always reborn.
Lead a balanced life and you return a
little better than when you left.
But unless you lead a perfect life
you will always return.

Etc...


This is not divine but mortal
man made desire. The earth
offers us only the option to
procreate. This act of creation
defines us and our religious
myth making and is plain for
all with a will of his or her
own to see.

Eternity is a desire that can
never be consummated.

[Zimphire]

benign you are repeating yourself over and over again.

Here is a hint, if it didn't work the first time, it's not going to work when you repeat yourself ad-nauseum many times after.

I don't know if you can grasp such a concept. You obviously have no clue.

Do you think you can get a autograph from Dio for me?

Thanks.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
benign you are repeating yourself over and over again.

This is what I would have replied to his last post verbatim.

[Zimphire]

When there's lightning - it always bring me down
Cause it's free and I see that it's me
Who's lost and never found
I cry for magic - I feel it dancing in the light
But it was cold - I lost my hold
To the shadows of the night

There's no sign of the morning coming
You've been left on your own
Like a Rainbow in the Dark

Do your demons - do they ever let you go
When you've tried - do they hide -deep inside
Is it someone that you know
You're a picture - just an image caught in time
We're a lie - you and I
We're words without a rhyme

There's no sign of the morning coming
You've been left on your own
Like a Rainbow in the Dark

When there's lightning - it always brings me down
Cause it's free and I see that it's meWho's lost and never found
Feel the magic -feel it dancing in the air
But it's fear - and you'll hearIt calling you beware

There's no sign of the morning coming
There's no sight of the day
You've been left on your own
Like a Rainbow in the Dark

benign or Dio? You decide.

I think we all know who benign looks up to.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It isn't about 'winning' an argument. It's about a free exchange of diverse opinions. It's a debate.

If you truly wanted to discuss ideas in an intellectual way, then this statement reveals a fundamental problem with your communication style. A free exchange of diverse opinions is not necessarily a debate. Your need to make it a debate speaks volumes about you, whether you want to accept that or not.

Secondarily, your need to focus on anything remotely resembling a "personal attack" and defend yourself when you claim to want to focus on the issue at hand also says a lot about you. It reveals your emotional maturity and your willingness to discipline yourself in your thinking.

Your tit-for-tat nature, combined with an overall tone of venomous indignation says a lot about you! You can pretend it doesn't, and that I'm just some fool trying to play doctor, though. But you won't learn anything that way.

Lastly, you would do well to actually admit when your opponents (which you so clearly view others as) have made a valid point. Give it a try. It makes you seem sane and plausible. This constant spouting off about how you're the good guy being victimized doesn't play well at all.

"I'm just doing this super smart and responsible thing and all these mean people are personally attacking me."

Give it up. You WANT to fight. You're just getting what you seem to really want...what your communication style encourages.


wolfen

PS --> Did you notice I don't go off on a long tirade to defend myself against your sophomoric insults? Try that out.

[benign]

Fence-sitters and religious
zealots alike high on freedoms
that only a secular society
could bring them.

Religion achieves nothing,
It has no goals and delivers
on none of its promises.
It is not evil as that is also
a religious ideology. But it
is the most ignorant mind
game made by man.






In the realm of ideas nothing
should be sacred, calling someone
a cretin or ignorant for holding
onto ideas forged and unchanged,
based on no observable evidence
for more than two thousand
years should be the norm. Everything
changes but change in the world
of human ideas - attacking the real
world of people and loved ones because
of things they cannot change because
they have no control over them
should and is reprehensible but not
archaic pipe dreams wrapped in fairy
dust.

Religion is by its very nature separatist
and from its distrust of other faiths to
its archaic social attitudes to abortion
and sexual gender preferences. It is crude
and fit only for conservative cretins.

[Lerkfish]

you know, I have no problem with atheism. Saying you don't know or don't believe there is a god is a fine POV, and even though I don't agree with it, I respect it.

However, I have yet to hear any antitheist argument recently in this thread that isn't circular, self-referential, condescending, emotional and illogical....IMHO, of course.

But if the criticism of religion is hinged on sins of the past and present committed by religious people, then one is always going to have a problem with religion that debate cannot rectify.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by wolfen:
If you truly wanted to discuss ideas in an intellectual way, then this statement reveals a fundamental problem with your communication style. A free exchange of diverse opinions is not necessarily a debate. Your need to make it a debate speaks volumes about you, whether you want to accept that or not.

Secondarily, your need to focus on anything remotely resembling a "personal attack" and defend yourself when you claim to want to focus on the issue at hand also says a lot about you. It reveals your emotional maturity and your willingness to discipline yourself in your thinking.

Your tit-for-tat nature, combined with an overall tone of venomous indignation says a lot about you! You can pretend it doesn't, and that I'm just some fool trying to play doctor, though. But you won't learn anything that way.

Lastly, you would do well to actually admit when your opponents (which you so clearly view others as) have made a valid point. Give it a try. It makes you seem sane and plausible. This constant spouting off about how you're the good guy being victimized doesn't play well at all.

"I'm just doing this super smart and responsible thing and all these mean people are personally attacking me."

Give it up. You WANT to fight. You're just getting what you seem to really want...what your communication style encourages.


wolfen

PS --> Did you notice I don't go off on a long tirade to defend myself against your sophomoric insults? Try that out.

Listen buddy, I'm not interested in trading insults with you. I thought I made that clear. Your position was weak, your arguments even weaker. You shot your wad and all you have left is to lash out at me. Nobody cares.

Go away.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
Fence-sitters and religious
zealots alike high on freedoms
that only a secular society
could bring them.

Do you realize how unclear and ambiguous your ideas are?

Originally posted by benign:
Religion achieves nothing,
It has no goals and delivers
on none of its promises.
It is not evil as that is also
a religious ideology. But it
is the most ignorant mind
game made by man.

It surely achieves some things, if not for itself, for some others. It's not for everyone, but I doubt you're well-versed enough in religions to understand anyway. Honestly, you're bundling up a lot of religions into one, when there are many fundamental differences between monotheistic and polytheistic (and pantheistic and beyond) religions. To use words like "evil" is pretty ironic, seeing as ideas of a religious nature probably began, and if not, perpetuated the ideas of "good" and "evil."

Originally posted by benign:
In the realm of ideas nothing
should be sacred, calling someone
a cretin or ignorant for holding
onto ideas forged and unchanged,
based on no observable evidence
for more than two thousand
years should be the norm. Everything
changes but change in the world
of human ideas - attacking the real
world of people and loved ones because
of things they cannot change because
they have no control over them
should and is reprehensible but not
archaic pipe dreams wrapped in fairy
dust.

Religion is by its very nature separatist
and from its distrust of other faiths to
its archaic social attitudes to abortion
and sexual gender preferences. It is crude
and fit only for conservative cretins.

Name-calling abuse of a large group of people because of their shared beliefs is hardly, well, hardly benign, or at least beneficial. Education should not be a negative experience, or forced upon unwilling people.

Again, you bundle too many religions (all) together; not all are against the social issues you mention.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you know, I have no problem with atheism. Saying you don't know or don't believe there is a god is a fine POV, and even though I don't agree with it, I respect it.

However, I have yet to hear any antitheist argument recently in this thread that isn't circular, self-referential, condescending, emotional and illogical....IMHO, of course.

I agree if you mean benign's arguments, but some of what wolfen has said doesn't seem to harbor any of those qualities.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I agree if you mean benign's arguments, but some of what wolfen has said doesn't seem to harbor any of those qualities.

right, I wasn't talking about you or wolfen.

[wolfen]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You shot your wad and all you have left is to lash out at me.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you know, I have no problem with atheism. Saying you don't know or don't believe there is a god is a fine POV, and even though I don't agree with it, I respect it.

However, I have yet to hear any antitheist argument recently in this thread that isn't circular, self-referential, condescending, emotional and illogical....IMHO, of course.

But if the criticism of religion is hinged on sins of the past and present committed by religious people, then one is always going to have a problem with religion that debate cannot rectify.

Or more correctly irreligious people who claimed to be religious, and justified their spiritual authority to commit horrific crimes (and these people, as a percentage of all religious people in history are in the sheer minority).

+ I agree with your above statement about atheism. However mindless, arrogent bashing of religion by athiests is not on. The same goes to religious bashing athiests.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by benign:
Pavlovs dog - man and his god.

Childhood is the time to sow
the seeds of superstitious faith.
Indoctrination starts at the most
tender of years, superstitious ideas
like god and JC are told in hushed
tones as if fact. The bell rings and
the religious drool.

I suppose that answered my question.

What a maroon.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I suppose that answered my question.

What a maroon.

"Never argue with a fool: people won't see any difference between you"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying you're not a fool, though.

[benign]

The missionary position.

Religion is a geographical nonsense.
For an islander from the indian ocean that
has only been taught a pluralistic religious
discourse. - Does that condemn him to
a christian style barbecue if their
saviour returns and not his.

By a geographical misshape, billions
will burn in a christian or muslin
final terminus.

[deekay1]

here is an argument from a slightly different pov:

okay, let's just for a moment assume that everything just boils down to opnion and faith, with all the thousands of religions in the world, how do you arrive at the fact that your faith of choice is the correct one?

i mean, after all, christianity, judaism or islam could be just fiction after all, and, e.g. the aztecs were the most important, pivotal, and only "real" culture ever to have existed...(like in "the hitchhikers guide..." where the mice are the most important species), and after you die you don't meet the old bearded guy, but the great serpent god "quetzalcoatl"...or "thor"...or "zeus".

in other words, what makes "christianity" the "right" religion (not just as a personal choice, but as an indicator for what is)?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
"Never argue with a fool: people won't see any difference between you"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying you're not a fool, though.

then if that's the case...

(waits a minute to allow the irony to sink into Cipher's thick skull.)

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by deekay1:
here is an argument from a slightly different pov:

okay, let's just for a moment assume that everything just boils down to opnion and faith, with all the thousands of religions in the world, how do you arrive at the fact that your faith of choice is the correct one?

i mean, after all, christianity, judaism or islam could be just fiction after all, and, e.g. the aztecs were the most important, pivotal, and only "real" culture ever to have existed...(like in "the hitchhikers guide..." where the mice are the most important species), and after you die you don't meet the old bearded guy, but the great serpent god "quetzalcoatl"...or "thor"...or "zeus".

in other words, what makes "christianity" the "right" religion (not just as personal choice, but as an indicator for what is)?

Right one? The "messianic"/Christ consciousness is a part of all cultures and has been revealed to them in the way that it can best be understood by them. Whatever they call their "Christ" (ie. Jesus, Buddah, Krishnah, Balder, Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, etc.) is irrelevant, they're all a part of the same ideal. All are archetypes for the same "being".

"A Rose by any other name..."

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
benign and Ronnie James Dio have a lot in common.

They both like to muddy their waters to appear deep.

And both come off looking silly in the end.

They are both just two rainbows in the dark.

Hey! Stop insulting Dio! They're one of my favorite "hair/metal" bands... along with Dokken and Iron Maiden). Ronnie's lyrics make far more sense than benign's.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Right one? The "messianic"/Christ consciousness is a part of all cultures and has been revealed to them in the way that it can best be understood by them...

dionysus = christ! LOL that's a good one! *ggg*

i wonder, in what way was this "christ consciousness" reveald to the yanomami, the vikings, the bantu, or aboriginals of australia? (other than by "western" missionaries of course)?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by deekay1:
dionysus = christ! LOL that's a good one! *ggg*

i wonder, in what way was this "christ consciousness" reveald to the yanomami, the vikings, the bantu, or aboriginals of australia? (other than by "western" missionaries of course)?

For that era and that culture, yes. Well, let's say he was "Christ" with a bent halo. There was the whole "walking on water", "water into wine", "fruit of the vine", resurrecting the dead, and he did supposedly make amends for past misdeeds towards the end. Hey, it's tough being the son of a greater god... all the chicks want ya.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by benign:
The missionary position.

Religion is a geographical nonsense.
For an islander from the indian ocean that
has only been taught a pluralistic religious
discourse. - Does that condemn him to
a christian style barbecue if their
saviour returns and not his.

By a geographical misshape, billions
will burn in a christian or muslin
final terminus.

Cold beans? Again? I'll be back when you bring something new to the table, like something we've requested.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Cold beans? Again? I'll be back when you bring something new to the table, like something we've requested.

"No soup for you!!"

[benign]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Cold beans? Again? I'll be back when you bring something new to the table, like something we've requested.

Fence sitting cowboy...

Do you want mummy to bring
something that you can swallow
and not get off the fence for ?
find non-superstitious ideas too
flavorsome.

How are you finding school ?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Or more correctly irreligious people who claimed to be religious, and justified their spiritual authority to commit horrific crimes (and these people, as a percentage of all religious people in history are in the sheer minority).

+ I agree with your above statement about atheism. However mindless, arrogent bashing of religion by athiests is not on. The same goes to religious bashing athiests.

I purposefully make the distinction between atheism and antitheism.

[benign]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Right one? The "messianic"/Christ consciousness is a part of all cultures and has been revealed to them in the way that it can best be understood by them. Whatever they call their "Christ" (ie. Jesus, Buddah, Krishnah, Balder, Dionysus, Osiris/Horus, etc.) is irrelevant, they're all a part of the same ideal. All are archetypes for the same "being".

"A Rose by any other name..."

In a single stroke you debase
every religions validity.

Man has no knowledge of, or could
ever know the plans or reasoning
of any possible creator -
but can only sniff at where his butt
might have been. That is the value
of all religious texts and the men
who maintain them.

This is my understanding of what
it means to be human and trying
to make sense of it through superstitious
reasoning. It is all man made sophistry
and empowering lies.

We are all the same - alone and without
reason - all we have is each other and
the possibility of a better tomorrow.

[wolfen]

If you all just put benign on your ignore list, you think he'd still post the same dung?

It could be a compulsive thing, you know. He may not have any control over it. I certainly haven't seen him demonstrate an ability to vary his responses.



wolfen