So some Indian restaurant here told my sister they're closed on Mondays and Thursdays because a lot of their customers are Muslim and those are the two days Muslims are forbidden to eat meat. She told me this over a joint tonight after work, so I googled it, and didn't find anything about days of no meat. But I kept reading, and this is some stupid shit. I mean I tend to think of all religions as being pretty retarded but wow. At least a lot of the shit Jesus supposedly preached is fairly enlightened, appealing stuff. What I read of dietary and various other restrictions was just... dumb. There are so many blatant contradictions and do-overs and sanctimonious grandstanding, pretending to be some all-knowing asshole with the answers to everything in your life. Ugh. I read about this shit for about fifteen minutes, that was all it took to make me laugh my ass off (I was high) and just be amazed that anyone buys this bullshit.

LOL @ OTHER PEOPLE

I think the Indians were having her on. They do that, you know...

Yeah, everyone knows Friday is the meat-free day

Well,

unless you're Hip...



(Look, pal-ie ~ you're my fucking NEMESIS, here.  If I'm obsessed, it's with your overall fuktardedness, and absolute wEnderment that you're included in such a FAB and elite place.  Of course, THEN I happen to think that if YOU weren't here, I probably wouldn't be welcome, either, so I pull myself back from just fucking BITCH punting you ~ YOU being the bitch of which, in that scenario.)

Yeah, everyone knows Friday is the meat-free day

Yeah that's why I eat the meat of fish on that day. Oh wait, that was on tuesday.

Tru is old school, rollin' through the hood with his miter and his rosary after vespers...

Well,

unless you're Hip...



(Look, pal-ie ~ you're my fucking NEMESIS, here.  If I'm obsessed, it's with your overall fuktardedness, and absolute wEnderment that you're included in such a FAB and elite place.  Of course, THEN I happen to think that if YOU weren't here, I probably wouldn't be welcome, either, so I pull myself back from just fucking BITCH punting you ~ YOU being the bitch of which, in that scenario.)

Um, what?

I can't believe you didn't get that, Si. If I'm going to be Fyre's official translator I'm afraid I'm going to have to charge by the word...

Hahahahahahahaha

I can't believe you didn't get that, Si. If I'm going to be Fyre's official translator I'm afraid I'm going to have to charge by the word...

Oh, I understood perfectly what she meant and who she said it to. My response is still valid.

All Abrahamic religions have dietary restrictions. Most of them made good sense when they were first conceived of. The Torah's/Pentateuch's restrictions again pork were intended to prevent death by trichinosis. The theory at the time was that God was smiting those that ate "unclean" foods and the codification of the law into dogmatic religious text provided an answer to the common rabble when the natural question of "why no eat pork?" came up. The answer is that this makes God angry.

The problem with religion is that it is inflexible and static. As science develops and demonstrates the reasoning to be incorrect for certain answers to the endless "why?" questions that man has always asked, religious thought should adapt to the new facts that have been uncovered. Sadly that's not actually religion, though. Religion entails belief without facts and in fact belief despite contrary facts.

So the problem is really with religion in general and not with Islam.

But really the problem has nothing to do with religion. The problem is that the proprietors of the establishment are fucking morons. The establishment closes on days when Muslims are forbidden from eating meat? Let's run through some elementary logic.
1)Presumably customers that order meat on these days are non-Muslims, no? Why is it the proprietor's job to protect the morals of his customers?
2)South Indian cuisine is almost exclusively vegetarian, isn't it? In fact Indian cuisine is one of the few places where ALL vegetarian options are delicious.
3)Indian food is amazing and should be available every day, am I wrong?

Indian food is yummy, but it puts a hurtin on my tummy.

I care not what is on the plate infront of me... I will eat virtually anything*.





* I will not eat a bowl of dicks, nor will I eat shit and die.

STUPID DISCLAIMERS!

How about...eat shit and have mild stomach discomfort for the next week?

The problem with religion is that it is inflexible and static. As science develops and demonstrates the reasoning to be incorrect for certain answers to the endless "why?" questions that man has always asked, religious thought should adapt to the new facts that have been uncovered. Sadly that's not actually religion, though. Religion entails belief without facts and in fact belief despite contrary facts.

Oh please, religions are broad, dont lump them all together. Oh no wait, im mistaken, anyone can see people with faith must be idiots! Now lets all laugh at them and their inferiority!

But really the problem has nothing to do with religion. The problem is that the proprietors of the establishment are fucking morons. The establishment closes on days when Muslims are forbidden from eating meat? Let's run through some elementary logic.
1)Presumably customers that order meat on these days are non-Muslims, no? Why is it the proprietor's job to protect the morals of his customers?
2)South Indian cuisine is almost exclusively vegetarian, isn't it? In fact Indian cuisine is one of the few places where ALL vegetarian options are delicious.
3)Indian food is amazing and should be available every day, am I wrong?

Um, maybe if nearly all his customers are muslim he may not get enough traffic on those days to afford to keep the restaurant open? He didnt preach at her, he didnt say you shouldnt eat meat on those days.

And i dont think the majority of indian food is vegetarian in the west/usa, a lot of indians eat meat. Besides im sure she has another restaurant nearbyish.   

if the guy wants to close his shop occasionally and still does a good trade then more power to him

Oh please, religions are broad, dont lump them all together. Oh no wait, im mistaken, anyone can see people with faith must be idiots! Now lets all laugh at them and their inferiority!

Oh please, If this is going to turn into a Hinduism is better than Islam debate then count me out. I was talking about Abrahamic religions initially but I broadened my criticism because dogmatic beliefs are actually pretty ubiquitous in all religions. Let's take for example the common concept of the creation myth despite and in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. Maybe your favorite religion is less dogmatic than Islam. That must be wonderful for you. I think my central point (that religious dogma is stupid) still stands and I don't think that adherence to a less obviously dogmatic religion entitles you to turn your nose up at other ones or to shift all the blame for dogma onto Islam.

I also don't laugh at the religious for their beliefs. I range from indifferent to objectively interested to critical but I know better than to think there's anything very funny about it.

Um, maybe if nearly all his customers are muslim he may not get enough traffic on those days to afford to keep the restaurant open? He didnt preach at her, he didnt say you shouldnt eat meat on those days.

I thought Antigua was mainly Christian. Wasn't it controlled by Spain? The name sounds pretty Spanish. Anyway I suppose that if the reason the proprietor was closing was due to reduced patronage on those days then that would just be a sound business decision but I was led to understand his reasons had something to do with making sure his Islamic patrons didn't accidentally ingest meat on days their religion forbade them to.

And i dont think the majority of indian food is vegetarian in the west/usa, a lot of indians eat meat. Besides im sure she has another restaurant nearbyish.

I've actually never been to an Indian restaurant that didn't have a large vegetarian section in their menus. If the restaurant owner wishes to cater to Muslims then why not follow the dietary practices that actual Muslim Indians follow? Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the assumption that on days in which eating meat is forbidden these people eat vegetables. Do they actually just abstain from food altogether?
If the goal was to remain open on all days then a vegetarian-only menu could be issued on the non-meat days, or... (even more obviously) the proprietors could just assume that that those ordering meat were not in fact Muslim. After all, why would a practicing Muslim deliberately violate the dietary laws of his own religion? Is the fear that the owner my be responsible for evilly tempting his good Muslim patrons to violate their laws? If so then I ask again why is this the responsibility of the proprietor?

Oh please, If this is going to turn into a Hinduism is better than Islam debate then count me out. I was talking about Abrahamic religions initially but I broadened my criticism because dogmatic beliefs are actually pretty ubiquitous in all religions. Let's take for example the common concept of the creation myth despite and in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary. Maybe your favorite religion is less dogmatic than Islam. That must be wonderful for you. I think my central point (that religious dogma is stupid) still stands and I don't think that adherence to a less obviously dogmatic religion entitles you to turn your nose up at other ones or to shift all the blame for dogma onto Islam.

I also don't laugh at the religious for their beliefs. I range from indifferent to objectively interested to critical but I know better than to think there's anything very funny about it.

I never mentioned Hinduism, frankly I can accept that I dont know enough about other religions to claim them as BS, so I dont.

I thought Antigua was mainly Christian. Wasn't it controlled by Spain? The name sounds pretty Spanish. Anyway I suppose that if the reason the proprietor was closing was due to reduced patronage on those days then that would just be a sound business decision but I was led to understand his reasons had something to do with making sure his Islamic patrons didn't accidentally ingest meat on days their religion forbade them to.

I've actually never been to an Indian restaurant that didn't have a large vegetarian section in their menus. If the restaurant owner wishes to cater to Muslims then why not follow the dietary practices that actual Muslim Indians follow? Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the assumption that on days in which eating meat is forbidden these people eat vegetables. Do they actually just abstain from food altogether?
If the goal was to remain open on all days then a vegetarian-only menu could be issued on the non-meat days, or... (even more obviously) the proprietors could just assume that that those ordering meat were not in fact Muslim. After all, why would a practicing Muslim deliberately violate the dietary laws of his own religion? Is the fear that the owner my be responsible for evilly tempting his good Muslim patrons to violate their laws? If so then I ask again why is this the responsibility of the proprietor?

All that Si's sis said was that the restaurant was closed because the majority of customers cant eat meat on those days. He never told her it was about accidentally getting any meat in the system.

Anyway, i dont know what the menu is like, i have never been there and i have gone to indian restaurants with little vegetarian option. And I cant say what muslims eat when not eating meat. I'd doubt theyd eat out but thats my own opinion.

And unless the owner of the restaurant was a strong muslim i doubt he would put making sure other people follow their faith over making a profit. 

Double post.

SCIENTOLOGY FOR EVERYONE!

Hey look, someone new engaged doormouse in a religious debate again.

Happy days

So some Indian restaurant here told my sister they're closed on Mondays and Thursdays because a lot of their customers are Muslim and those are the two days Muslims are forbidden to eat meat.

I guess I read another "because" into this line between "and" and "those." I shall blame the drink I was enjoying last night. If the owners are losing money by keeping the place open on Mondays and Thursdays then obviously it makes sense to close down.

Hey look, someone new engaged doormouse in a religious debate again.

Happy days

Oh hush. I try to fight my impulses but I'm just as much a sucker for these discussions as I am for cruel women with soft eyes. Anyway I'm already sick of myself in this thread. In my ideal world people wouldn't discuss religion. Traditions are fine and everyone can do whatever they want according to whatever scriptures they prefer provided it doesn't interfere with other people. But everything else is uncool.

I bet you $50 I can beat you at ping pong

I put a fiver down on underclass.

No contest. I'd take you up on it if it was foosball, though.

I'm just as much a sucker for these discussions as I am for cruel women with soft eyes[/img]
So... what are you doing friday night? Up for some abuse?

Whore. You promised me firsties.

Anyway,

I'm just as much a sucker for these discussions as I am for cruel women with soft eyes[/img]
So... what are you doing friday night? Up for some abuse?

Hmmm.. I may just be. That's kind of rare for me and that weekend will be my last free moment before August. Have anything special in mind? I think I remember how to get to your place.

Y'all know I'm a Christian, but I keep having to wEnder about something Jesus said to us about His Father's house having Many Rooms, and Him going to prepare one for us.

Anyone that wants to know God, and tries to adhere to religion, as it's been presented to them, is just seeking God.  Nothing bad about that, imho.

In many religions, you're taught that you ARE, indeed, your brother's keeper ~ YOU need to be responsible for what you put out there, and if whatEVER you're putting Out There is temptation ?  Then you share a responsibility in the sin.

In the New Testament?  Christians are told that NOTHING that God created and put here for us is forbidden to us:  No meats; no veggies; no "drugs"; NOTHING.

paraphrased scripture:  It's not what you put into a man that defiles him.  It's what comes OUT of him that defiles him.

There honestly CAN't be anything that God gave us that He wouldn't have wanted us to have.  He's GOD, ffs!  But, (what a SHOCK!), I digress...

Y'all know I'm a Christian, but I keep having to wEnder about something Jesus said to us about His Father's house having Many Rooms, and Him going to prepare one for us.

Anyone that wants to know God, and tries to adhere to religion, as it's been presented to them, is just seeking God.  Nothing bad about that, imho.

I think that's a very fine way to look at it. I wish there were more that agreed with this view. I was raised Christian and I remember that one of the things that bothered me the most was that according to the Sunday School teachers it didn't matter how nice of a guy the Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist fellow you knew was. He had selected the wrong religion and would burn for it eternally. Even at this early formative age something about that just struck me as completely wrong and evil.

Have I got a story for YOU!

When I first became Christian?  I went to Church all the time, and Son-day school and all of the ladies studies, but it all happened at a time that I was taking care of a lady (Virginia) that had Alzeheimers.  It wasn't too long before I couldn't take her with me, and I had no relief to watch over her if I left.

I prayed and prayed for guidance, by which, I hoped for other Christian's to talk to about all the things I was reading.

Even though I was a member of TWO different Churches, no one could "work me in"to their busy schedules, not even for a once a week visitation.

I prayed about that, and He told me that I didn't need other people to tell me what He was saying to me,

I needed Him.

It isn't Church that helps you become righteous.  It isn't what other people think that makes you a Christian.

It's your relationship to Him, whether Him represents God, or Buddha, or Muhammad, or whoever.

NO ONE who actively seeks God will fail to recognize Him, when He speaks the truth to them.

imho 

Christianity teaches 100% involvement and commitment or you go to hell. Absolute surrender to the law of Christ. You madam, are an alcoholic and a drug addict. Do you follow a subset of the bible?

You should be Wendering about whether Jesus ever said anything at all since the christian religion is a total fabrication of Roman politicians.

I don't subscribe to that. Joshua Bar Joseph AKA Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. There'd have been no point for the Romans to fabricate such a thing.

I think the doubt is over whether or not he said he was the son of god.

Who cares if he said it?

Lots of other people have made similar claims.

The doubt is over whether it's true.

Christians? Maybe.

I don't see any reason to doubt it in this instance. It's not as the later (and thus presumably less accurate) gospels present him as divine while he earlier ones present him as just a good man. In fact it's the other way around.

I don't think Christians question whether Jesus called himself the Son of God. That's an article of faith for them.

Yeah, Christians would believe it outright. 

And it should be irrelevant to everyone else, unless they either want to paint Jesus as a nut or if they want to believe he was just a pretty good dude and not a messianic figure until painted that way later.

Whether its true or not is an issue for all religions. My point about whether he said it or not was because if he never said it then it wouldve been made up for political/whatever reasons.

Precisely.

something Jesus said to us about His Father's house having Many Rooms, and Him going to prepare one for us.

Just for reference, this is the line we are discussing. Are there actually any reasonable suspicions that this was made up by Jesus' detractors for political reasons?

The entire bible was edited by Constantine's cronies so anything in it is suspect.

That's actually one of those lines that I am surprised wasn't purged from the Bible when the first child molesters were purging everything that didn't support their version of the church.

Maybe they meant bedrooms.

That's actually one of those lines that I am surprised wasn't purged from the Bible when the first child molesters were purging everything that didn't support their version of the church.

I've often thought that Christian Fundamentalism would evaporate if there was proper coverage of the history of the formation of the bible in the primary school system. I'm against the mixing of church and state, but I'd be very happy to have kids learn about the history of religions. It's kind of an important topic in my view considering the impact of religion on modern life.

Christianity teaches 100% involvement and commitment or you go to hell. Absolute surrender to the law of Christ.

This is not necessarily true about modern Catholicism and to a lesser extent Episcopalian, Lutheranism and Protestantism.
This is likely true of many fundamental and pentecostal sects of Christianity, but I never claim to know anything about those.

I think that the history of religion would be interesting in school, but I worry about the ideology creeping into primary textbooks.
The history of religion, then, if it were to be taught, ought to be kept to the later end of secondary school (which, at least in PA schools in my experience, it is).

Yeah, I would have the same concern about ideology creeping into the textbooks.

Especially considering the influence Texas has on other textbooks - they were off on some complete bullshit about downplaying Thomas Jefferson as a minor figure in the formation of the country, downplaying the importance of the social movements at the middle of the last century, making Ronald Reagan out to be the chosen leader of Jesus Christ, etc. in the latest thing I read about their history book selection. 

Any book that specifically addressed Christianity would end up morphing into the bullshit evangelical cheer leading that goes on down there.

Christianity teaches 100% involvement and commitment or you go to hell. Absolute surrender to the law of Christ. You madam, are an alcoholic and a drug addict. Do you follow a subset of the bible?

That's just it, Nick.  God gave us the substances I use, and He's told us that ALL of it is for us, and that it isn't what you put into a man that defiles him, it's what comes out of him.  Like hate, cruelty, jealousy, etc.

It isn't a "subset" ~ it's taking the Bible for it's word, and not believing what other folks will tell you He's saying.  When you start depending upon someone else to Tell You The Rules, you're being mislead.  When you believe Jesus, what He told us, you know that the entire Bible can be summed up in the ONE "rule" of Do Unto Others.

We, as human beings, are going to sin and make mistakes, but if those mistakes aren't violating that "rule," we haven't done anything "wrong."  If I was having to steal for my drug and/or alcohol money, or turning into a Hate Machine whenever I drank/got stoned, I'd be going against everything I know about Him.  It WILL happen, occasionally ~ we're rebellious; but I don't make that a habit.  What I've tried to make a habit of is enjoying the good things I've been given, and sharing them with others.

I could very well be totally wrong about that, but when I think of the wars and hatred that religions have instigated and/or participated in,

just 'cuz someone thought God wanted all of THESE particular sinners to be wiped off the face of the earth,

and then went on to instruct and influence others to sit in judgment and carry out this mission,

well, I'm just not down with that.

I know that my relationship with Him is personal, and if He doesn't want me doing something?  Anything?  He'll take it away from me.  You don't know this, but I used to be a real drug addict ~ I was a coke shooter.  It went just so far, and He stopped me.  All of the sudden, I couldn't hit a vein to save my soul, and after a couple of tries, I got pissed off, and threw what I had away.  I never went back.  To this day, I don't touch coke (nor any other "hard" drugz), and not because it isn't there.  He doesn't want me to do that, and I know it, and I won't defy Him about it 'cuz I know why ~ He loves me and doesn't want me hurt.

The amazing thing is that I wasn't a believer at that time, but I knew it was Him working in my life.  I did become a Christian shortly after that, needless to say!

Something you may not know is that I use alcohol, medicinally, as a pain killer.  Oh, I ENJOY it, too, make no mistake, but THAT's the beauty of it!  I get to decide on my "treatment," and my choice is to use what He gave me, not a bunch of concoctions that man has semi-figured out will work. 

ROFL @ Zoomie!

I've often thought that Christian Fundamentalism would evaporate if there was proper coverage of the history of the formation of the bible in the primary school system. I'm against the mixing of church and state, but I'd be very happy to have kids learn about the history of religions. It's kind of an important topic in my view considering the impact of religion on modern life.

That whole Church/State thang?  Was to keep the gov out of the Churches, it was NEVER meant to keep the religious mores of the day out of our ethical selection of officials.

Yeah, I would have the same concern about ideology creeping into the textbooks.

Especially considering the influence Texas has on other textbooks - they were off on some complete bullshit about downplaying Thomas Jefferson as a minor figure in the formation of the country, downplaying the importance of the social movements at the middle of the last century, making Ronald Reagan out to be the chosen leader of Jesus Christ, etc. in the latest thing I read about their history book selection. 

Any book that specifically addressed Christianity would end up morphing into the bullshit evangelical cheer leading that goes on down there.

Wow.  I wasn't aware that you were a resident of Texas.

WTF is anyone turning everyone into evangelical cheer leaders?

Cripes, my son went to PAROCHIAL Public School.  That's right.  The convent and school in Panna Maria was the closest school, and the COMMUNITY wanted it like that.  That happens in a decent democracy ~ the MOST folks get to say how it is for ALL of the folks.

Miracle of miracles, he graduated, UNBAPTIZED, and no one thought a thing of that.

It's a matter of choice.  If there are options, you get a choice.  If there aren't, you don't.

What you fail to realize is that folks can decide for themselves.  At some point in our lives, we're able to throw off whatever influences we've been subjected to, and make our own decisions.

That whole Church/State thang?  Was to keep the gov out of the Churches, it was NEVER meant to keep the religious mores of the day out of our ethical selection of officials.

OK it saddens me to have to do this again but...

READ THE CONSTITUTION. Nowhere does it say "separation of church and state".

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That was meant to keep any religious group from getting too much power and becoming a state sponsored religion, not the other way around. Not the other way around.

I've often thought that Christian Fundamentalism would evaporate if there was proper coverage of the history of the formation of the bible in the primary school system. I'm against the mixing of church and state, but I'd be very happy to have kids learn about the history of religions. It's kind of an important topic in my view considering the impact of religion on modern life.

That whole Church/State thang?  Was to keep the gov out of the Churches, it was NEVER meant to keep the religious mores of the day out of our ethical selection of officials.

You're missing my point almost entirely. I did mention church versus state, but not in a "selection of officials" context. It's long been established that the federal government may not promote one religion over another through the school system and that has nothing to do with individual morals regarding voting. My point was that with proper education about how the bible came to exist in its current form I think much of the rampant biblical literalism that plagues us today would be cut away.

Another thing I think should be taught more is geology. People can't understand evolution today because they have almost no concept of evolutionary time. They think of things in terms of their own lifetimes. I'd like to see Religious History as a unit in World History classes and Geology could replacing Phys. Ed. I do recognize that this is the real world, though, and Emp and Mello are probably right about the crazies fucking it up for the poor gullible children that are our future.

Errr...

Never mind.

I suppose its the SCOTUS responsibility to interpret. But suffice it to say that I don't vote for any candidate who makes issue of their beliefs.

I'm going to start a religion. It's gonna be as batshit crazy as all the other ones. I's gonna be rich!!!

Make sure your holy writings contradict themselves every few pages and mix in a few solid "religious facts" like "gravity makes things fall upward" or "ice is warmer than fire" so that you can have a healthy and vigorous "the jury is still out because I say so" debate with scientists.

The issue isn't living in Texas.  It's that Texas is one of the largest purchasers of books in the country and as such, the school board there makes on textbooks affects what textbooks are available on the market.

In the case of Texas, they're making changes that in no way reflect the historical record.  If you rewrite history, though, you can teach a whole generation of kids that the founding fathers founded the nation on Christian ideals, that American capitalism is the only good way to run an economy, and that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president since George Washington.

If the facts of history seem a little too liberal, just ignore them and leave them out when you teach your kids.

The guy who heads the board in TX that chooses and actually edits (censors) schoolbooks was quoted as saying "All modern law is based on scripture so you cannot seperate church and state". Oh really? God gave us 10 commandments. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie don't cheat, etc, mostly a moral guideline. Jesus said little more than "Love God, love each other, and try to be nice."

If all modern law were truly based on this we'd have little use for SCOTUS or any high courts, really. This is just another case of Christian fundamentalism forcing itself on the masses. Anyone in Texas with a lick of common sense, whether they are parents or not, should be screaming fascism.

So once again, fuck Texas, fuck Arizona and fuck Florida.

Yeah that's pretty damn offensive. The implication is that morality only exists in a religious context. What tripe.

Make sure your holy writings contradict themselves every few pages and mix in a few solid "religious facts" like "gravity makes things fall upward" or "ice is warmer than fire" so that you can have a healthy and vigorous "the jury is still out because I say so" debate with scientists.

You are the expert in religion afterall.

You don't have to be an expert to recognize that belief in the supernatural is in tension with factual reality.

If you say so.

Well either that or the jury's still out, right? In a world where reality is as one chooses anything is possible. They say knowledge is power, but that underestimates imagination by a long-shot.

Its not a case of believing in

A) the real world
Or
B) magical fairy land

True. The word "fairy" can be anything you choose.

If that were true this, statements like 'religion should be wiped out' or that 'all people who believe are idiots' would not bother me.

Well we differ there. I don't care that religions are all appeals to supernatural powers to explain shifting cultural norms of morality. To call for them to be wiped out strikes me as tragic. I have nothing against tradition. I am fine with anybody else believing whatever they want to to help them do what they consider moral (provided it doesn't interfere with my lives or the lives of others that do not wish to be interfered with or that lack the capacity to make that judgment like children). Calling for them to be wiped away just because they are legends and fictional stories is the same as erasing your history. Human culture is depleted by such a thing and that is a terrible loss in my view.

As for the idea that all people who believe are idiots, again I don't think I would go so far despite the fact that I think that what they believe is false. The idiots are those that argue for their spiritual version of reality in place of the fact-based experiential reality that surrounds us. Religion has its place and that place is not the laboratory or the school room. If a person is religious then I think his reasoning is flawed but his result is fine. Provided he doesn't rub my face in his reasoning I usually don't even know he's religious. Religion is a private matter. Idiots go out of their way to make it public. You can't just call all religious people idiots simply because their reasoning is poor.

Doormouse - was up in a bookstore on walnut last night and saw world history according to the bible, including maps ect, thought of you. Looked interesting.

When you believe Jesus, what He told us, you know that the entire Bible can be summed up in the ONE "rule" of Do Unto Others.

fyre, man. sometimes you're real hard to understand, but sometimes you really hit the nail on the head. You're absolutely right, the entire new testament (well at least the gospels and acts) can be summed up into just that "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself" Which, if you're looking at just that, is some solid advice.

Morality can really come from anywhere. I make it no hidden secret that my moral code comes from my very strong Roman Catholic background, but I don't think I truly (tried to) live them for the sake of doing what is right (not just living the code for fear of some eternal damnation) until I became sans-religion, atheist, or whatever I "am". Different strokes, different folks, I guess.

I was raised Christian and I remember that one of the things that bothered me the most was that according to the Sunday School teachers it didn't matter how nice of a guy the Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist fellow you knew was. He had selected the wrong religion and would burn for it eternally. Even at this early formative age something about that just struck me as completely wrong and evil.
[/quote]

I assume that is an exclusively Christian idea? Catholics see it differently since Vatican II, particularly since 1994 and 2000 -  People of different faiths as long as they live "do unto others" (which is the basis for a whole hell of a lot of religions) will obtain "salvation" as the gospel lays it out.

With that being said, Catholic teachings really don't bother with a concept of hell anymore. No idea what the Vatican thinks of that.

I was actually raised Roman Catholic too. But I had some oldschool CCD teachers. Full of detailed descriptions for the kids of the the fire and brimstone of hell that the wicked would see. I know the official line has changed within Catholicism but it's still alive in Christianity at large and even in some individual Catholics.

I guess I'm not certain of the details but I imagine the current dogma holds that those who have not been baptized or confirmed or those that don't believe in Jesus will still have to burn off some of these sins in purgatory, no? I mean as far as I was taught almost nobody gets directly into heaven except saints and no non-Christian is eligible for sainthood, right?

Japan has a good system, all the sting was taken out of the religious system by the feudal lords so these days it's go to the temple on new years day and party up for the next 364.

Yeah that's pretty damn offensive. The implication is that morality only exists in a religious context. What tripe.

Straight up, they have appropriated all normal human traits and branded them as their own.

They appropriated a damn sight more than that and claim it as their own.

I mean, YEAH!

These filppin' RELIGIOUS folks have just taken every freakin' GOOD TRAIT known to man,

and claimed that their "God" not only INVENTED it, but actually ENCOURAGES exhibiting it!!!

Cripes!

God invented Guinness. I'm serious, who hasn't had a Guinness without thanking some higher power?

"God" not only INVENTED it, but actually ENCOURAGES exhibiting it!!!

Opinion.

God invented Guinness.

Fact.

God invented Guinness. I'm serious, who hasn't had a Guinness without thanking some higher power?

This is why you are a respected member of this community.

Doormouse: WARNING:  Im going to use some "god language" (the thought makes my skin crawl), but I dont know how else to answer your questions without it, so bear with me.

I guess I'm not certain of the details but I imagine the current dogma holds that those who have not been baptized or confirmed or those that don't believe in Jesus will still have to burn off some of these sins in purgatory, no?

you're thinking of "Limbo" which isn't necessarily taught anymore. Purgatory, as it is taught post-vatican II, is a "conversation" with god - like your final confession of sin after death. According to Catholics, the merciful God forgives and you resurrect. There is no floating around or concept of time in a waiting room as was previously taught.

I mean as far as I was taught almost nobody gets directly into heaven except saints and no non-Christian is eligible for sainthood, right?

I think there's a lot you have confused here. "Saints" don't become "Saints" until well after the human in question is deceased. For example, Mother Theresa of Calcutta isn't a Saint yet, she is only "blessed". St. Katherine Drexel took forever to be canonized. There's all sorts of things that go on in the Vatican before a deceased can become a saint. Therefore, no one resurrects as a saint. The Vatican is always reviewing who is, who should no longer be, and who could become a saint. Its all very confusing. As for the non-christian and sainthood, I am not sure about that. Mahatma Gandhi would be the best candidate for that but I dont think that's on the table.

the 7th sacrament, the anointing of the sick, contains reconciliation within it which is supposed to prepare the person for resurrection into heaven. That's why it is very important for many hard-line catholics to wear a bracelet that says they are catholic, or to tell a hospital that they are in need of a priest when they are very sick. Also the catholic rite of burial contains all sorts of reconciliation references in it.

Sounds like you were taught by a very old catechist. I had the same problem in my primary years. I went to 13 years of catholic education, 4 were single sex. From grades 1-3 I was taught out of old 1950's catechism books and learned all about purgatory, not eating meat on fridays, limbo and all sorts of pre-vatican II stuff (the scary stuff) when I was very young. It really fucked me up. But then the bishop closed a bunch of schools, including mine and I ended up in a different school, taught by a different sect of nuns, and these sisters taught by Vatican II and I re-learned the faith.  I relearned again when my mother sent me to high school (a liberal single sex school). I learned about myths, catholic "facts" and  had an opportunity to survey Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism... ect. However, its important that i say my liberal education didn't keep me in the faith - But learning proper catechism helped me not to hate the faith. I found that religion was not for me after plenty of self examination and meditation in mid/late high school. I began to dislike religion after watching too many kill all in the name of something whose existence they could not prove.

And Brats soaked in Guinness, grilled over charcoal - that is Manna, bitches.

Purgatory, as it is taught post-vatican II, is a "conversation" with god - like your final confession of sin after death.

Whereas I was taught that Limbo is reserved for unborn babies (because they weren't baptised and didn't need punishment) and Purgatory was a place of mild to severe punishment (like hell) but for a limited time. Essentially you'd "burn off" your sins in Purgatory and only the truly wicked would stay in Hell forever.

I think there's a lot you have confused here. "Saints" don't become "Saints" until well after the human in question is deceased.

As far as I remember being taught Sainthood is merely recognized by humans years afterward. There is an extensive examination process including the need for at least one miracle to be attributed to the saint in question. But I thought that that the saint's direct entrance into heaven without any purgatory is as a result of his/her past life and not the politics-infused determinations of us lowly humans. If non-Christians are eligible for Sainthood then things really have changed. Then again I'd have said the same thing about altargirls and look where we are today, right?

Doormouse: WARNING:  Im going to use some "god language"

I don't mind god language of the sort you've provided. I'm not opposed to objective discussions of religion at all. I rant and rave about religion a lot but I think most of what I write falls into the too long didn't read category so my essential views don't come through. I'll try to be brief with this although I love to go on and on:
1) I think religions are inaccurate or false depictions of reality. I believe the capacity for religion is inbuilt into people. Humans are pattern-finders. If patterns don't exist we create them and are completely able to fool ourselves that they exist. We have a strong drive to come up with explanations for things. We have an innate sense of morality which is the product of the intersection of social evolution with regular survival-of-the-fittest evolution. We needed a way to explain why things are right and wrong in a pre-scientific era. So we invented frameworks or systems that used the supernatural to explain it. Now that science conflicts with religions (due to science's outright rejection of the concept of supernature) it has become a cultural battleground with conflicting portions of both memes locked in mortal combat. I find that the scientific method is much better suited for determining reality than the immutable legends and stories of former generations. I have bought into the scientific concept that there is no supernatural world for no other reason than that experience teaches this. I appreciate that those who believe in a superior being finds this thought to be monstrously arrogant but for me I have to accept experience over the words of "the elders" because again experience teaches me that "the elders" are human and are frequently wrong. So I treat all religion equally as presumptively inaccurate at best.
2) I think people should be able to practice whatever religion they want (within reason). The reasoning behind why a person is moral doesn't bother me that much. Morality is fine and if you need the threat of an angry god or if you need to feel like your moral behavior pleases a superior being then that doesn't bother me. I like tradition and I like the friendly ability to associate with and identify as a member of a group. So in that sense I am quite in favor of people adhering to the traditional aspects of any religion. To me it's a cool recognition of your origins or at least the origins of the group whose philosophy you subscribe to. On the other hand I am quite opposed to those elements of a religion that force you to put yourself in a position that conflicts with the beliefs or practices of others. See point #3.
3) I think people should not actively or aggressively proselytize (or otherwise force their religion on others). This includes invading school boards or scientific fields to push religious views, holding religious protests and of course the various acts of terrorism (middle eastern car-bombs, anthrax letters, abortion clinic sniping, etc.), and arguing the superiority of their religion over others (see point #4). As I said earlier, I think religion is at essence a private matter. It's something that one can engage in publicly but only to the extent that it doesn't infringe on the ability of others to do what they wish to do.
4) I think no religion is superior to any other. I think the counter-premise is a feature of most religions. If you subscribe to a certain set of views then you obviously think they are better than those of other groups. While religions usually agree over the main tenets of human morality, there are a few differences in the fringes. To judge superiority of religion based on these fringe elements presupposes that morality is objective. It is not. Morality is the product of social evolution and is subject to change. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuality was shocking for example. As a corollary to my point #1 (that religions are just half-assed explanations of why we should do that which we do), the legends and stories of one group are no better than the legends and stories of any other. Religions are all equally inaccurate and none provides a superior explanation because all rely on supernature as the basis for their reasoning.

So in sum, I think religion is the wrong explanation but I find it interesting and I support the the rights of the religious equally to practice their religions to the extent that it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

Bonus microtext: My ranting online (not just here) usually starts because someone conflicts with either point #2 or #4 and then, as the argument progresses and I reveal that I have adopted a scientific perspective, the argument gets mired in point #1. I find it particularly difficult to make any headway against the ridiculous notion that science is nothing more than another religion. Mainly because I don't think most people understand what science or the scientific method is. They conceive of it as little more then men in white lab-coats and flasks quizzing them on matters which bore them to tears. Furthermore I'm arguing with faith and that is pointless. Then I get depressed and resolve to never get into point #1 again. And then I see a violation of points #2 or 4 and that gets me going again. It's a pretty amazing waste of time, no?

Good post, man.

I agree with 2, 3, and 4 kinda. (it makes me think of the blind men and the elephant story, I dont know if that makes them equal or not but I dont intend to learn enough about my own and all the other religions to make a judgement).

Anyway, I went to the temple today. Paaaaar-tay. 

Saints need 3 confirmed "miracles", at least the last time I heard about it - which who knows when that was! The rest, Im not sure.

And I completely agree with your views on religion - I feel the same way

So if I fart 3 times, and no one dies, that's 3 miracles, right?

I's GONNA BE A SAINT!!!

I'm not touching any relics you leave behind

Saints need 3 confirmed "miracles", at least the last time I heard about it

One down, two to go?

Of course, who knows where all this Sean Payton/prescription drugs scene will go...

Bonus microtext: My ranting online (not just here) usually starts because someone conflicts with either point #2 or #4 and then, as the argument progresses and I reveal that I have adopted a scientific perspective, the argument gets mired in point #1. I find it particularly difficult to make any headway against the ridiculous notion that science is nothing more than another religion. Mainly because I don't think most people understand what science or the scientific method is. They conceive of it as little more then men in white lab-coats and flasks quizzing them on matters which bore them to tears. Furthermore I'm arguing with faith and that is pointless. Then I get depressed and resolve to never get into point #1 again. And then I see a violation of points #2 or 4 and that gets me going again. It's a pretty amazing waste of time, no?

I cosign.

Bonus microtext: My ranting online (not just here) usually starts because someone conflicts with either point #2 or #4 and then, as the argument progresses and I reveal that I have adopted a scientific perspective, the argument gets mired in point #1. I find it particularly difficult to make any headway against the ridiculous notion that science is nothing more than another religion. Mainly because I don't think most people understand what science or the scientific method is. They conceive of it as little more then men in white lab-coats and flasks quizzing them on matters which bore them to tears. Furthermore I'm arguing with faith and that is pointless. Then I get depressed and resolve to never get into point #1 again. And then I see a violation of points #2 or 4 and that gets me going again. It's a pretty amazing waste of time, no?

I cosign.

Ditto. It's a quagmire. Giggity.