Do they think we're morons?

Question: would the rock-chucking[1] be so enthusiastic if the OP was
Jewish? Or Muslim?

Is it because we have a smattering of Christian teachings programmed
into us from an early age that we become so dismissive? Whereas we
know next to SFA about Judaism or Islam, so don't question it so
vehemently?

I dunno, I reckon it's all Luther's fault. Or Lois Lane. I forget.


[1] I'll admit to the odd handful of gravel myself.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..74309../..18302.../..3184./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4
'^' RBR Landmarks: 12 Pts: 220 Miles: 914

 

Well yes, they are. But if you chose to advertise them in a public
place then it can be expected to have them challenged.

It is acceptable to challenge someone's beliefs, I assume?

In the case of automatic dismissal and condemnation I would be right
there with you.

I would be quite happy to have peopl post regarding their religious
views. If I could for once decide exactly what mine are, I'd be
prepared to post my own. As it stands, though, I can't decide from one
day to the next what I really think it's all about. Positively
Agnostic, I think sums me up.

I admit that I'm not trawling back through all the posts to check this,
but iirc, it was Phil who brought the religious viewpoint into this
particular thread.

You are correct, he has not attempted to foist his view: I for one
never interpreted his post as such.

Okay, point taken.
I may be frothing at the mouth a bit...

However, in my own defence, I'm not frothing because of an espoused
religious view per se. I'm 'frothing' because the view is fairly
preposterous, and when challenged, is backed up by blatant misquote and
some rather exotic misinterpretation. It's frustrated froth, not
animosity froth.

No problem. I have my own reasons for getting drawn into this debate
too, which are not well documented.

If I have come across in the debate as mocking, then that was not
intentional. What I have been on occasion is exasperated at some of the
answers received.

Personally, I'm not after anyone abandoining whatever faith it is they
have. And you're right to a point, no one can prove or disprove what
some god's will might be. However, as yet, Phil has not managed to
provide any sound basis for this particular belief of his. If he can
give one or two solid quotes, or pieces of reasoned argument, then, even
though I'll disagree still, I will at least accept that he has a valid
and thought out point of view. That's all I ask.

To my mind, intellignece and faith are not mutually exclusive. They
shouldn't be found to be working against each other, though...

Ty.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Personally, no.

It's not Phil's Christian faith in itself which I'm arguing with.
It's one specific view which he is espousing which he has not been able
to hold up to scrutiny.

It might be the case that we might not have sufficient knowledge to spot
misquote and wild interpretations mixed with contradictions and
inconsistencies. (Going beyond the current issue and speaking generally)

Paul's

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Heh. Not a bad analogy

Indeed so. My wife is a pretty comitted Christian. Her father was until
very recently a lay reader in the CofE. Anyone that claims they're thick
merely on that basis is talking shite, IME. I enjoy talkking about
religion (I wear my TEAR# with pride) although I don't feel any need to
beleive, myself. I particuarly enjoy listening to those that do beleive,
as well as know what they're talking about.

Sorry, can't help there. TBH I have wondered as well about mentioning the
prevalent attitude, but it really didn't seem worth it.

Ahh, now there we can disagree. I don't hold anything said by anyone (so
far) to reflect on them IRL. The few UKRMers that I have met are normally
very differently behaved in a face to face situation.

For example: Pip is far less rufty tufty than come across, Cane is far more
tolerant and SteveH and I share a common affliction.

You only get a very small slice of an overal persona through this medium
IMO.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 155 TS
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Oh yes. But it does give you an appreciation of cultural references in
Art and literature that otherwise would pass you by.

 

Do you need the 'narrow' bit for that?

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

What, kill millions just to gain a bit of desert, which, if he was all
powerful, he could have acquired by a bit of sleight of hand and a quick
abracadabra ?

I dread to think

 

You know next to nothing about this Bear, you've assumed. Care to
debate this and resolve the original issue behind it (which was you
inferring something that wasn't there) or are you still intending to
sling mud from behind a kill file?

You infer wrong. Again. There are wonderful, intelligent, erudite,
kind, caring people with faith from across religions I admire and
count as close friends. I base my assessments on people not the
religion.

Apart from the OTW lot <shudder>

 

If you're slinging mud stop hiding behind a kill file.

 

Bear said...

You haven't got the slightest fucking idea what you're talking about.

I haven't seen that said, and I know the LN has never said that.
Intelligence does not require an absence of faith nor does faith require
an absence of intelligence.

 

Lady Nina said...

Quoted in full so that Bear can see it. If you're going to make comment
about other people's POV, at least be in a position where you know what
it is, rather than what you assume it to be.

 

jsp is right you know

 

No the narrow bit gives you a base line from which to expand, often
off at many tangents. Unfortunately the funding to take up the offered
place to explore some more tangents is not yet acquired.

 

Or not, as the case may be

 

The 'necessarily'. But that isn't the issue. I see no point in trying
to resolve it here.

 

So that means your ethos is dependent upon people taking decisions that
you regard as un-godly or against God's purpose. That you need a number
of people out there to be at odds with your belief system. One would
assume that these un-godly will be punished in some form which means
that not only are you resting upon other peoples efforts but your system
actually requires the punishment of others just to save you.

 

Often there is no difference - to a surprising number of people
politics is like religion - insofar as their parents voted
lab/tory/raving-monster and so do they.

It would be interesting to see what %age of the posters on ukrm vote
differently to their parents (posters over 30 (and Blaney) only as kids
tend to vote to spite their parents).

 

Bear said...

Certain types, with certain types of behaviour. I don't believe she has
condemned "religious types" at any point.

Is it? It seems clear that you have decided what you want to read.
Certain types of behaviour, associated with certain types of people,
often found amongst certain types of religion, perhaps. But "religious
types" I think not.

And yet you felt it necessary to refer to her by name and state that she
had "issues with religion". That seems more than a little snide from
where I'm sitting, not to mention rather patronising.

If only it were.

 

Well I think you find out after you've pegged-it. You may find out that
it's not what you thought it was going to be like.

Ah, hang on, yes, if there is no eternal soul then you cannot exist in
any form or dimension to be able to perceive your environment.