Politically (in)correct 11

[Trevoke]

Well, we can discuss this for hours, months, years, eons on end, but let's limit this to the current event : christmas.

Why on earth are people trying to take christmas away from the christians? December 25th *IS* christmas, and sorry to break it to you all, PC-people, but all these countries, built on christian roots, have a christian tradition.
I don't want to see "Winter break" or "winter holidays" or "whatever".
If you really, really want it to be done properly, remove the holidays altogether, because I really can't see why christians and jews would have off around that time of the year and other people wouldn't, or why people would have off when they don't even believe in the stupid happenings.
Establish a real calendar with all the holidays in the world, make people prove their religious affiliation, and then give off to people specifically for those holidays.
Now the madness is complete.

-Haben sie fosforos?
-No tiengo caballero, but I have un briquet.

 

[SantaMufasa]

So, John, could you set us all straight? Are you suggesting that having a discussion with minimum/acceptable levels of logic and supporting facts causes you pain?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[

http://www.dasages.com:

Providing low-cost remote Database Admin services]
Click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips if you use Oracle in Utah USA.

 

[SamBones]

Debate" requires supporting facts and minimum acceptable levels of logic.

"Discussion" allows for opinions and statements of beliefs, unsupported by facts or logic.

IMHO

 

[BoxHead]

That's exactly why I cannot set you straight!

John

 

[SantaMufasa]

Sam,

Even during a "discussion", if you hope to have your fellow "discussers" take you seriously or agree with you, your assertions must either be logical, well supported, or self evident.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[

http://www.dasages.com:

Providing low-cost remote Database Admin services]
Click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips if you use Oracle in Utah USA.

 

[Jomama46]

Santa, I was giving an opinion, it seemed self-evident to me.
I wasn't prothlitizing (sp). When something is so obvious it doesnt seem necessary to "prove" my "opinion"

Jomama

 

[SamBones]

Santa (Dave),

I agree with you!

BUT, this thread is largely discussing religion, which, in my opinion, is more based on belief. Belief seems to me to have looser requirements for supporting facts and logic. It does seem to have a self consistent logic, but not a logic that is consistent with non-believers' world views.

In my opinion, religious "facts" and "logic" seem to be very subjective. They seem to vary greatly based on how an individual decides to interpret and accept things in certain texts.

It's also my opinion that "self evident" can vary greatly from individual to individual. What may seem to be self evident to one person, may be an illogical conclusion to another.

If just seems to me that if one religion was well supported by nothing but independently verifiable facts and was logically consistent with the observable world, then any reasonable man or woman would see that and we would eventually have one world religion.

But these are all my opinions. They are unsupported by any facts and may or may not be logical or self evident. Some may agree with me, some will not. It doesn't matter, I've still contributed my unsupported opinions to the discussion.

Sometimes we don't need people to agree with us.

 

[SantaMufasa]

Okay then, just to ensure that I understand the "rules": When we discuss "non-religious" issues, we must be logical and factual; when we discuss "religious" issues, then all bets are off: nothing needs to make sense, no need for logic, no need for facts. In fact, the more wild-harebrained a concept, the more "religious" it must be.

Is that about it? Sounds "logical" to me.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[

http://www.dasages.com:

Providing low-cost remote Database Admin services]
Click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips if you use Oracle in Utah USA.

 

[Jomama46]

Santa, I think you got it.
Religion is not about logic, about proof, about "what makes sense" it is about faith.

Jomama

 

[CorBlimeyLimey]

I don't remember where I heard the following, but it seems to hold true; (may not be exactly as heard)

"For a believer, proof is unnecessary.
For a non-believer, proof is not enough."

Of course those statements could be reversed for non-existence proof.

MERRY CHRISTMAS
(Unabashedly Politically Incorrect)

 

[fumei]

Tim (SilentAche),

>>There is nothing wrong with being Christian - I mean other than it is equivalent to any other deity based belief system.<<

Whew, am I glad to know that: Thank goodness my Christ-based faith is okay with non-believers. What a load off my big ol' butt.

I have a lot of respect for you, but that is one of the most personal twisting-out-of-context responses I have witnessed.

The context was this: I was IN FACT (please read it again) expressing sympathy for Christians feeling pressure to accomodate. I was expressing the feeling that they have no need to do so.

Is that so difficult to understand?

I expressed explicitly that there is nothing wrong with being Christian - other than (is this so difficult to understand that this is my opinion) they share the failings (again - is this so difficult to understand that this is opinion?) of ANY deity based faith.

I am entitled to have the SAME thoughts as you. You consider I am "wrong" in NOT believing in a deity. Well, I think you are "wrong" in believing in one.

At least I am thoughtful about it and actually read responses.

Your sarcastic "What a load off my big ol' butt." just indicates (to me) that you reacted without thinking, or reading. If it seems a load off your butt, then you put that load on yourself. I, for one, NEVER put it there.

As for your "Christ-based faith is okay with non-believers"...again, I suggest your read a bit more carefully. Allah-based faiths are OK with non-believers - oh...gee Tim...gosh, maybe I am wrong about that. To a believer in Allah, YOU are the non-believer. Are YOU OK with them?

You likely do not think about it much, do you Tim? Why do I say that? Because you, like that believer in Allah know you are right, and the other wrong.

Which is why....as I tried to gently use logic, but clearly failed...I pointed out that Chritians are equivalent to ALL deity based faiths.

Oh....but because you know you are right, and everyone who believes in some other deity is wrong, you also know that, well....that is silly...MY faith is not equaivalent...because, well, they are wrong. It is not Allah, it is Christ.

Unfortuantely Tim, ALL, and I mean ALL, faith/religions think the same way.

Poorly. Because it is not thinking. It is faith. And having faith IS (to my mind) a certainty of rightness.

You may think that Christianity is special (and of course for you it is)...but I hate to tell you this, but unless one actually believes in it, Christianity is not all that much different from any other deity belief.

Same old, same old.

All of which is not to be disrespectful to those who DO have faith - Christian or otherwise. Have your faith. As I tried to state, but obviously not well enough, there is no need to accomodate any other faith. It is faith...something in the heart. No one has to accomodate for that.

Mind you, it would be better if one would act on that faith, but - shrug - that may be too much to ask.

Gerry

 

[SantaMufasa]

Gerry,

Interesting that you played the "Allah" versus "God" card. The official "title" of the Christian and Jewish Old Testament/Torah God, is "Elohim" (who is the God of Abraham). Not so coincidentally, Abraham is also the revered Father of the Arab people and ancestor of Mohammed. When speaking with an Islamic devotee, the God of "Father Abraham", was known anciently in Arabic as "al-ilah", literally "The God", and more recently, "Al-lah".

So, when you suggest that, "Because you, like that believer in Allah know you are right, and the other wrong," is not at all accurate...Although the belief set/tenets of Islam/Christianity/Judaism may differ, most religious scholars agree that "Elohim" and "Allah" (read, "Al-loh-im" if you add the Hebrew suffix of masculinity, "im" to "Allah"), are one and the same being.


Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[

http://www.dasages.com:

Providing low-cost remote Database Admin services]
Click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips if you use Oracle in Utah USA.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Let's stay focussed on the issues, and not get personal. Overloaded sarcasm is totally inappropriate and disrespectful to the participants and readers of this thread. If you cannot discuss the issues professionally and without ad homimen remarks, please stay on the sidelines.

Remarks in the vein of "you need to get a life" serve no purpose and will not be tolerated.

Show respect for each other.



--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[fumei]

&lt;post removed by moderator&gt;

Please feel free to repost you points, but without the antagonistic sarcasm.

 

[Trevoke]

Religion is the great dividor.
How can one admit that the basis for all that they believe in is WRONG&quot;
I am a Christian but not an evangelical. I am not so sure that there isn't more than one answer to the same question.
I tend to accept the Physicians oath. (also copier techs) &quot;First do no harm&quot;

This, in a way, goes back to what I was saying with children.. In order to be able to learn, one needs to know when one is wrong. In order to admit that one is wrong, one needs to be open-minded.
I went from catholic to taoist, and although it's a little different (from a faith to a philosophy/way of life), the simple fact that I have changed means that I just cannot tell anyone whether they're right or wrong, because I've obviously changed my mind once on what WAS right and wrong.

With my friends, we got to the conclusion that every religion is right for somebody, but not everybody is right for every religion (that's actually very taoist... lol). Every religion has at least a piece of the Truth, assuming there is such a thing, so no one is completely wrong -- but no one is completely right!

---------
fumei : with the &quot;what a big load off my butt&quot;, SilentAiche was simply expressing this : he does not need anyone's approval to be OK with his system of beliefs.

We go back to what has come to this thread a few times : &quot;I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe.&quot;

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
- Thomas Jefferson

That's true, isn't it?
Fumei, I agree with you on one point: many christians now feel like they have to defend their faith. That's a failing of the people who taught them, not a failing of the religion. Sadly, when one does not understand the consequences of teaching someone else, these situations can easily be reached.

Compare this to a bad martial arts teacher who will teach for several years deadly techniques to a student who has a mental unbalance and will then go and use these techniques for improper ends. It is the sensei/sifu/teacher's job to weed out, and pick and choose who can be taught what.

This actually links to what SilentAiche said: non-believers seem to know a lot more about the christian writings (which is only a part of the religion!) than some believers. Why is that? Is there a moral obligation to know as much as you can about your religion? I don't think so.. One only learns as much as one is comfortable with.


Also -- fumei :

You consider I am &quot;wrong&quot; in NOT believing in a deity. Well, I think you are &quot;wrong&quot; in believing in one.

That's interesting. SilentAiche never said you were wrong, did he? Here's another way of thinking about it.
SilentAiche thinks he is right, and you think you are right. There is no accusatory tone, no denigration. This particular truth (faith, system of beliefs, way of life, whatever) is SUBJECTIVE. Everyone has their own. And it can change (as I would be a living proof of this).

What led me to change? Well, I was a little curious when I read/heard/saw that things like adultery were punishable by death by stoning.. That homosexuality was condemned.. That masturbation was condemned.. It was an awful lot of things which, I felt, didn't really fit with today's society. What bothered me was that some people thought they should be enforced in today's society!

I have always understood the Bible to be, quite literally, &quot;THE BOOK&quot;. It held a way of life, a set of teachings, history, beliefs, everything that you need to teach your kids how to live (there's a really long list of what to do and what not do, as I recall). However, it worked for a particular society, 2,000 years ago. Not today's society. Societies evolve.

I've considered circumcision to be the same thing : a great thing for a nomadic people who have to travel through the desert. Does anyone want to go through the pain of getting sand in there? ... And in today's society, isn't that a little bit obsolete, at least for urban folks, and when you consider today's clothing?

The impossibility for people to evolve is what turned me away. Taoism is timeless, which is what truly interested me. And the Tao Te Ching is a short read ;-)

&quot;That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX.&quot;
&quot;Well, that's something,&quot; Avi says. &quot;Normally those two are mutually exclusive.&quot;
-- Neal Stephenson, &quot;Cryptonomicon&quot;

 

[fumei]

I would like to request that my post, the one previous to the removed one, also be removed. It contains sarcasm as well. May as well have consistency. I felt that there was already personal comments. My apologies. I will retreat from this thread.

Gerry

 

[Trevoke]

fumei : I would be saddened if you did retreat. Because the tone was unsuited to the conversation does not mean you can't contribute. Your ideas are valuable to us all.

"That time in Seattle... was a nightmare. I came out of it dead broke, without a house, without anything except a girlfriend and a knowledge of UNIX."
"Well, that's something," Avi says. "Normally those two are mutually exclusive."
-- Neal Stephenson, "Cryptonomicon"

 

[CajunCenturion]

Although your first post does contain sarcasm, it is mild by comparison, and I don't consider it to be out-of-line. Further, your points are quite valid and are an integral element of the discussion. I hope you choose to remain active in a civil exploration of our differences.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[nicksims]

Just a little pat on the back for this forum. I never really got into the forum thing- when I first perused a few (not here), they seemed to have been filled with the rantings of, well, the utterly aggravating and silly. Arguments, skyhigh soapboxes, pointless, shallow arguments with little to no support. And plenty of time-wasting personal attacks.

What do we have here? A reasonable discussion of a volatile topic with a mix of questions, answers, and those wanting to understand a bit more. And the momentary words that could be taken slightly offensively? No flaming- just a request to reel it in so the topic could continue and no requests to exclude- the opposite really- a "come back and explain your points" attitude.

Cheers to the sane and intelligent.
Nick

 

[tgreer]

Many indeed view the Bible as a quaint, out-of-date semi-mythical collection of stories, moral guidelines, dubious history and so forth. What's shocking to me is that many professed Christians have exactly this attitude!

I think, though, that a more in-depth analysis of the contents of the Bible show it to have a unified theme, a thread that runs through the entire canon. In this macroscopic view, the theme is "The Kingdom of God", ruled by his appointed king, the "Messiah" or "annointed one", also called the "seed".

Starting in Genesis, there is the first prophecy of the "seed". Abraham recieved some confirmation, saying the seed would come in his line. The accounts dealing with the Israelites and the Law were meant to show the need for the seed. David's kingship foreshadowed the reign of the appointed king. The Greek scriptures show that Jesus was the foretold seed, but that the kingdom wasn't an earthly one. Revelation shows the king enthroned, judging the earth, restoring it to the conditions that were lost by Adam and Eve.

Seen in this light, the Bible is a coherent "whole", with a definite theme, even though written by many men over a vast period of time. That alone is astonishing, and leads many to believe what the Bible writers' themselves often claimed: written by men, inspired by God. That's quite a different view than the Bible as "good luck charm" or "morals to teach your children".

My biggest criticism then against Christianity in general is that it disregards or treats as of very small account its primary "holy book", or seeks to bring religious practices, morals, teachings, and doctrines "up-to-date" in complete contradiction to and defiance of that book. That leaves Christianity with no firm standing, no basis.

Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

 

[SantaMufasa]

Fascinating, eloquent, and even-handed summary, Thomas! Have a Purple Star.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[

http://www.dasages.com:

Providing low-cost remote Database Admin services]
Click here to join Utah Oracle Users Group on Tek-Tips if you use Oracle in Utah USA.