You judged another person by implying that if they were a true Christian they would not test their faith and belief.
To suggest that another person should believe without question, and to then find them wanting if they should do otherwise is a dangerous and unhealthy opinion indeed.
“Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they. In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit."
The poster said nothing about believing without question.
"Holy Land" Yes, you could try praying on the final descent. Would you trust me to be pilot? I've done quite a few 'circuits and bumps' and I'm sure I'd be fine with the bit in the middle.
But, to be serious; "Holy land", or holy any item is wrong (usual imho). Isn't the very concept of "Holy land" against Jewish principles even? Pretty sure I remember reading something to that effect...
Thanks for your invite but sadly I must decline. I wouldn't want to be sick all over you. I have a vertigo type disorder, you see. It's my ears.
I prefer my feet to be on terra firma - where they are meant to be imho.
But, to be serious, too. Jerusalem is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Every religion has its sacred places in the world.
Mandy Rice-Davies would say " The Jews would say that wouldn't they"
I think, in future, instead of my usual pseudo biblical analysis that ends with the qualification 'in my opinion',
I shall start posting pseudo biblical analysis that ends with the rider'as the actress said to the bishop'.
Thanks for your invite but sadly I must decline. I wouldn't want to be sick all over you. I have a vertigo type disorder, you see. It's my ears.
I prefer my feet to be on terra firma - where they are meant to be imho.
But, to be serious, too. Jerusalem is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Every religion has its sacred places in the world.
Nonsense. Everyone's head department works exactly the same as everyone else's, as I said earlier. So you're just pretending to have a disorder because you're afraid of flying and heights. Tell you what. I'll remove the sick bags from the plane to show how certain I am that you'll be fine.
It's asking for trouble investing extra value into inanimate objects, buildings and places. All's well while they remain intact and available, but they can cause untold misery, and even told misery. That fragment of a Holy lance thing in the Crusader doc. the other night, comes to mind. Religion is much safer if kept inside where it belongs (if anywhere).
I think, in future, instead of my usual pseudo biblical analysis that ends with the qualification 'in my opinion',
I shall start posting pseudo biblical analysis that ends with the rider'as the actress said to the bishop'.
:kitty:
I think this could work! :cool:
In the beginning was the word the actress said to the bishop. They laughed and went their separate ways, but all throughout the place in which they met - tiny little replicas sprang up to repeat the joke. Naughty children sometimes say it out loud, while adults may find it replaced with ****, should they dare type it here.
I think SULLA is one of the least demanding posters on here, if you don't mind me saying so Jenny.
Nice to see you on here btw.
Well he has just agreed with me about what he demands which is daily compulsory attendance at the worship of his God and prosecution of any who do not fulfill the requirements of the statute concerned.
Thanks for reading it bolly. I wondered if you'd notice as I'd forgotten to indicate it was in reply to you ;rolleyes-at-myself:
A little irony was it. You need to watch out. A little irony like that could turn into full scale thermonuclear world war!
But they've got the creator of the universe on their side. All we've got is mockery, if that's what you want to call it. Reason doesn't work. Scientific facts are inadmissible if they conflict with ancient wisdom. Language is next to useless if we use the exact same words for objective and subjective experience. Poetry never gets read, or commented on with any sincerity. All that's left to say could hardly sound like anything other than mocking.
Yes. We've done pretty much all of it over the years.
With the exception of those with brain disorders, I'm becoming more and more convinced that all our internal experiences are the same. I can't think of a single reason why we would evolve with different perceptions of the environment in which we must survive. We may be born with predilections and tendencies, but they would not make for differences in the way we perceive things. Our subjective worlds are strewn with unspoken needs which rule rule the roost. So; no dear. Your bum would look great even in a bin bag. :kitty:
Thanks for the reply. I do think out internal experiences are different and shaped by the environment. Now it may be possible that the environment changes DNA. Otherwise it is hard to account for why people hold radically different views on so many topics, as well as different tastes.
I'm not sure why religion has to be mocked in order to express disbelief. Yes, if you don't believe in sailing you can mock it as "tearing up dollar bills under running water." That's probably all you are going to do though.
You aren't going to join a forum and continually moan about sailing. If a person is so compelled to mock, I assume it is some conflict within them.
Can you give examples of such legislation and are you advocating it be adopted in your own country?
There is already legislation preventing harrassment in the workplace.
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
And I think it sets a good tone for respect outside work, too.
What largely secular cities or countries are you basing your understandings on? I'm having difficulty finding any at all. For example Mexico is secular but appears to be very violent for lwhat are argely non religious reasons. Some cities have a predominant single abrahamic religion but you'd probably find them very unsafe. I've had a look around the net and Jerusalem which has the "nightmare three abrahamic religions" seems to be quite safe for travelers despite the tensions.
Northern and western European countries, many of which have largely agnostic or atheist populations, I did give some examples. Besides, the point the original poster was making is that religion has caused unnecessary suffering and bloodshed, that is undeniable-in India religious sectarianism has caused the deaths of countless people. Religion is not the cause of the violence in Latin America these days but neither is secularism. In Norway and Denmark only 3% of the population go to church weekly and in Sweden just 5% go to church regularly and all have among the highest levels of agnostics and atheists in the world, none of these are unsafe countries. The same is true of the Netherlands.
There is already legislation preventing harrassment in the workplace.
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
And I think it sets a good tone for respect outside work, too.
Employment Law that was not extended beyond the work place for good reasons. Indeed that form of harassment applies to a wide range of factors; gender etc.
Yes unbelievably that is Saudi bastion of religious freedom! A country where non-Muslims cannot be citizens. When advocating such legislation one needs to be aware of the distasteful company one will be keeping and inadvertently lending succour to.
Northern and western European countries, many of which have largely agnostic or atheist populations, I did give some examples. Besides, the point the original poster was making is that religion has caused unnecessary suffering and bloodshed, that is undeniable-in India religious sectarianism has caused the deaths of countless people. Religion is not the cause of the violence in Latin America these days but neither is secularism. In Norway and Denmark only 3% of the population go to church weekly and in Sweden just 5% go to church regularly and all have among the highest levels of agnostics and atheists in the world, none of these are unsafe countries. The same is true of the Netherlands.
No the original point was that Jerusalem is a bad place to visit because of the violence between the three Abrahamic religions. Anything else is irrelevant unless you wish to further extend our discussion by providing some convincing and alarming stats or personal experiences etc. Suffice to say if someone paid me I probably would go to Jerusalem. In the past I have rejected opportunities in places I have considered dangerous such as W Africa and Baghdad..
Thanks for the reply. I do think out internal experiences are different and shaped by the environment. Now it may be possible that the environment changes DNA. Otherwise it is hard to account for why people hold radically different views on so many topics, as well as different tastes.
Experiences of our senses, like the sensations of sight, sound and touch are probably very similar for everyone. What we make of a period of using our senses to experience an activity in the environment, will be as varied as, and mostly due to, the 'nurture' we get from day one (and probably a little before that). Are you suggesting a person's DNA can change during their life time? I don't know much about it, but I doubt that's likely, but I can't think of anything else you could mean.
Tastes and traits may be inherited, but views are adopted and hopefully based on good data rather than feelings - especially when they may make the difference between survival and failure (of the individual, the species, or even life itself!).
I'm not sure why religion has to be mocked in order to express disbelief. Yes, if you don't believe in sailing you can mock it as "tearing up dollar bills under running water." That's probably all you are going to do though.
I can't think of anything which could reasonably be compared with religion. Sailing doesn't cut it. A religious form of sailing would require no boat, and people would just sit around in a room pretending to be splicing the main brace, or whatever sailors do these days. They would simply believe the sea exists, but would not want to know if it does or doesn't, because it would spoil their faith. But whether real sailors sail or not makes no difference to the lives of others. They wouldn't like it much if everyone started doing it, although I expect they'd think it would be beneficial to any who try it... Some similarities then.
I suppose it could be said that I do mock religion sometimes. If I'm honest (I am) I'd have to say it frightens me more than anything else I know anything about. I've probably said before - if something frightens me, I may try poking it with a stick. See if it really has any teeth. All the while ready to turn and run home to mummy though...
So far The Protector of The Faith hasn't showed up to sort me out.
You aren't going to join a forum and continually moan about sailing. If a person is so compelled to mock, I assume it is some conflict within them.
No one is "compelled to mock" lol. You make it sound like we must be driven by some evil force and then introduce your illogical assumption that it's due to conflict within. There is no conflict. That would show as uncertainty surely, and you don't see much of that around these parts.
I should remind you that I don't entirely agree with the "mocking" descriptor. You introduced it I think. How about "irreverent" instead. Would seem more apt.
I remember, in a previous discussion, you were wondering about the survival value of things like art. What would you say is the survival value of religion? In other words; why did (or would) nature evolve religion? The robes, the wealth and the lifestyle of religion's staff doesn't look so attractive these days, if it ever did...
Well he has just agreed with me about what he demands which is daily compulsory attendance at the worship of his God and prosecution of any who do not fulfill the requirements of the statute concerned.
Experiences of our senses, like the sensations of sight, sound and touch are probably very similar for everyone. What we make of a period of using our senses to experience an activity in the environment, will be as varied as, and mostly due to, the 'nurture' we get from day one (and probably a little before that). Are you suggesting a person's DNA can change during their life time? I don't know much about it, but I doubt that's likely, but I can't think of anything else you could mean.
Our DNA changes a lot as we get older and possibly even with what we do. Not the DNA sequence but the way cells use genes differently.. DNA methylation. <Hawking speech synthesizer on>....CHECK - IT - OUT..
Comments
I think I'll be giving Acapulco a miss. I'm off to France.
Yeah ok
What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correct Richard
Thanks for your invite but sadly I must decline. I wouldn't want to be sick all over you.
I prefer my feet to be on terra firma - where they are meant to be imho.
But, to be serious, too. Jerusalem is holy to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Every religion has its sacred places in the world.
I'll wave as you fly over Jersey. Good civilised choice.;-)
Meniere's ?
Yes.
Do you have it, too?
Yes, it's a bitch isn't it
I think, in future, instead of my usual pseudo biblical analysis that ends with the qualification 'in my opinion',
I shall start posting pseudo biblical analysis that ends with the rider 'as the actress said to the bishop'.
:kitty:
Aww, I'm sorry to hear that. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
I think SULLA is one of the least demanding posters on here, if you don't mind me saying so Jenny.
Nice to see you on here btw.
You too, though what doesn't kill us makes us stronger ;-)
I don't know what stage you are at but I made some big changes recently after a lot of research, and it has made an enormous difference.
I don't want to go off topic here but if you ever want to chat or compare notes you're very welcome to PM me.
Me too.
Sure, we can chat about it over PM.
Of course i dont mind you saying that about SULLA, its very kind of you nethwen x
It's asking for trouble investing extra value into inanimate objects, buildings and places. All's well while they remain intact and available, but they can cause untold misery, and even told misery. That fragment of a Holy lance thing in the Crusader doc. the other night, comes to mind. Religion is much safer if kept inside where it belongs (if anywhere).
In the beginning was the word the actress said to the bishop. They laughed and went their separate ways, but all throughout the place in which they met - tiny little replicas sprang up to repeat the joke. Naughty children sometimes say it out loud, while adults may find it replaced with ****, should they dare type it here.
Well he has just agreed with me about what he demands which is daily compulsory attendance at the worship of his God and prosecution of any who do not fulfill the requirements of the statute concerned.
I am sure he will confirm this.
It shouldn't be a threat if an atheist just wants to disbelieve and not humiliate anyone.
Thanks for the reply. I do think out internal experiences are different and shaped by the environment. Now it may be possible that the environment changes DNA. Otherwise it is hard to account for why people hold radically different views on so many topics, as well as different tastes.
I'm not sure why religion has to be mocked in order to express disbelief. Yes, if you don't believe in sailing you can mock it as "tearing up dollar bills under running water." That's probably all you are going to do though.
You aren't going to join a forum and continually moan about sailing. If a person is so compelled to mock, I assume it is some conflict within them.
There is already legislation preventing harrassment in the workplace.
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren’t very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
And I think it sets a good tone for respect outside work, too.
Northern and western European countries, many of which have largely agnostic or atheist populations, I did give some examples. Besides, the point the original poster was making is that religion has caused unnecessary suffering and bloodshed, that is undeniable-in India religious sectarianism has caused the deaths of countless people. Religion is not the cause of the violence in Latin America these days but neither is secularism. In Norway and Denmark only 3% of the population go to church weekly and in Sweden just 5% go to church regularly and all have among the highest levels of agnostics and atheists in the world, none of these are unsafe countries. The same is true of the Netherlands.
Employment Law that was not extended beyond the work place for good reasons. Indeed that form of harassment applies to a wide range of factors; gender etc.
http://www.religionlaw.co.uk/civilaa.htm
So I would still like to know which countries have these laws against 'humiliation' that you appear to be advocating.
I agree there are things people should not do and humiliating them (for any reason) is one. Passing laws about such things however is potentially a very dangerous move.
I note for instance that 'Saudi Arabia has called for all criticism of religion and of the prophet Mohammed to be made illegal in Norway'.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2014/04/saudi-arabia-calls-for-criticism-of-religion-to-be-outlawed-in-norway
Yes unbelievably that is Saudi bastion of religious freedom! A country where non-Muslims cannot be citizens. When advocating such legislation one needs to be aware of the distasteful company one will be keeping and inadvertently lending succour to.
No the original point was that Jerusalem is a bad place to visit because of the violence between the three Abrahamic religions. Anything else is irrelevant unless you wish to further extend our discussion by providing some convincing and alarming stats or personal experiences etc. Suffice to say if someone paid me I probably would go to Jerusalem. In the past I have rejected opportunities in places I have considered dangerous such as W Africa and Baghdad..
Tastes and traits may be inherited, but views are adopted and hopefully based on good data rather than feelings - especially when they may make the difference between survival and failure (of the individual, the species, or even life itself!).
I can't think of anything which could reasonably be compared with religion. Sailing doesn't cut it. A religious form of sailing would require no boat, and people would just sit around in a room pretending to be splicing the main brace, or whatever sailors do these days. They would simply believe the sea exists, but would not want to know if it does or doesn't, because it would spoil their faith. But whether real sailors sail or not makes no difference to the lives of others. They wouldn't like it much if everyone started doing it, although I expect they'd think it would be beneficial to any who try it... Some similarities then.
I suppose it could be said that I do mock religion sometimes. If I'm honest (I am) I'd have to say it frightens me more than anything else I know anything about. I've probably said before - if something frightens me, I may try poking it with a stick. See if it really has any teeth. All the while ready to turn and run home to mummy though...
So far The Protector of The Faith hasn't showed up to sort me out.
No one is "compelled to mock" lol. You make it sound like we must be driven by some evil force and then introduce your illogical assumption that it's due to conflict within. There is no conflict. That would show as uncertainty surely, and you don't see much of that around these parts.
I should remind you that I don't entirely agree with the "mocking" descriptor. You introduced it I think. How about "irreverent" instead. Would seem more apt.
I remember, in a previous discussion, you were wondering about the survival value of things like art. What would you say is the survival value of religion? In other words; why did (or would) nature evolve religion? The robes, the wealth and the lifestyle of religion's staff doesn't look so attractive these days, if it ever did...
I am a strong believer in the law being upheld.
Our DNA changes a lot as we get older and possibly even with what we do. Not the DNA sequence but the way cells use genes differently.. DNA methylation. <Hawking speech synthesizer on>....CHECK - IT - OUT..
http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news91