NationStates Jolt Archive

I follow a certain Abrahamic faith that requires me to observe a few important rules, such as

- not having an excessively liberal sexual attitude
- not drinking alcohol
- discourage (my own) homosexual impulses if I am clearly heterosexual*

* there seems to be a confusion - I think it would be better if I switch homosexual with homoerotic thoughts, such as "nice ass," not "nice ass -- I'd really like to pound that"

Ideally, a conservative, right-leaning party would best suit my observances, but I would vote for the left-oriented party that allows homosexual marriages, questionable content on TV, pornographic productions and to generally secularize our society.

I believe that the one who follows his true faith does not need any intervention, rather, the said person would moderate him/herself and possibly discourage others from being an excessive drinker or sleeping around with too many people. In spite of these temptations, a true believer would take the opportunity to concentrate and strengthen his own faith, rather than criticizing others.

Are there many more like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG? What are the conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint?

- discourage (my own) homosexual impulses if I am clearly heterosexual

...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Eh I'm am atheist but some of the Bible stories are top quality entertainment, esp all that Elisha and Elijah stuff.

"Oh no some baddies"
"Will summon 4 hit dice of undead to fight them off then"
"Heh cool"
"And some kids just called you a slaphead lol"
"Aye am raising 2 spirit grizzlies to sort the cads out"
"Heh"

...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

This. You can believe that you must do certain things without enforcing your beliefs on an unwilling populace. That's not hypocritical - that's tolerance.

This. You can believe that you must do certain things without enforcing your beliefs on an unwilling populace. That's not hypocritical - that's tolerance.

I think the dictionary would disagree with you about the meaning of tolerance. But anywho, let me ask you this. If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths? The society is forcing its views of faith being a private thing on people who believe that its necessary for them to share their faith.

I think the dictionary would disagree with you about the meaning of tolerance. But anywho, let me ask you this. If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths? The society is forcing its views of faith being a private thing on people who believe that its necessary for them to share their faith.

The society may be becoming that way, this is true. However, the government (at least in the US) is not. They have tried at certain points, but SCOTUS has struck it down every time.

I think the dictionary would disagree with you about the meaning of tolerance. But anywho, let me ask you this. If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths? The society is forcing its views of faith being a private thing on people who believe that its necessary for them to share their faith.

Because we dont want to hear about your faith every moment of our lives.

Believe it or not, everyone in the west knows about Christianity. We dont need you to share it with us.

Because we dont want to hear about your faith every moment of our lives.

Believe it or not, everyone in the west knows about Christianity. We dont need you to share it with us.

That's not the point. I am saying that if tolerance is about not forcing beliefs on people, then the West is intolerant to Christianity, atm. Based on that definition do you agree or disagree?

That's not the point. I am saying that if tolerance is about not forcing beliefs on people, then the West is intolerant to Christianity, atm. Based on that definition do you agree or disagree?

Wow.

Really? The west is intolerant to Christianty?

Since when is Christianity forced to be a private thing in the west? Its pretty public.

Since we're talking about definitions, I pulled webster's. The definition of tolerance we're using is the second definition:

2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

b: the act of allowing something :

toleration

If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths?
Certainly. The question is: Rightly? Actually, also: Selectively?

There seems to be little fault in being intolerant of an adjective. The problem comes when there is intolerance of a proper noun on a basis beyond the adjectives to which that noun is related.

Wow.

Really? The west is intolerant to Christianty?

Since when is Christianity forced to be a private thing in the west? Its pretty public.

We don't let them persecute others and burn witches at the stake. We're so intolerant!

We don't let them persecute others and burn witches at the stake. We're so intolerant!

Yeah, and we make them respect others faiths. We're bastards.

We don't let them persecute others and burn witches at the stake. We're so intolerant!

Yes come back to me when you read somewhere in the Bible that its an okay to do so, as opposed to a direct command from God himself to fulfill the Great Commission, IE share the faith.

Wow.

Really? The west is intolerant to Christianty?

Since when is Christianity forced to be a private thing in the west? Its pretty public.

Intolerance does not equal hidden. We're intolerant of a lot of things that aren't hidden.

For instance, when I was a cop, we got called about once a week from some old lady because Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses were out in her neighborhood proselytizing. That woman is intolerant of their beliefs, as their beliefs specifically call for them to go out proselytizing. SCOTUS ruled that we are not allowed, as a governmental entity, to restrict their proselytizing work in any way.

Ergo, the government is tolerant of it. However, not all citizens are.

Yeah, and we make them respect others faiths. We're bastards.

That's what I love about NSG. You can't answer my point so you have to grasp at everything you can to try and make my point look silly.

That's not the point. I am saying that if tolerance is about not forcing beliefs on people, then the West is intolerant to Christianity, atm. Based on that definition do you agree or disagree?
I would disagree. The state isn't trying to make anyone's beliefs change, it's just not getting involved.

Yes come back to me when you read somewhere in the Bible that its an okay to do so

Old Testament.

Matthew 5:18 also says the OT laws are still relevent.

as opposed to a direct command from God himself to fulfill the Great Commission, IE share the faith.

Yeah, and the direct command from God to kill people who worship different Gods. But we dont let you do that either. We're so intolerant!

That's what I love about NSG. You can't answer my point so you have to grasp at everything you can to try and make my point look silly.

You have no point. You have a Christian persecution complex. Your point is silly.

Yes come back to me when you read somewhere in the Bible that its an okay to do so, as opposed to a direct command from God himself to fulfill the Great Commission, IE share the faith.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" comes to mind.

And really, persecution is exactly what our system tries to stop Christians (or any other group that might get a vast majority in the future) from doing. If you have no objection to stopping persecution, then I don't see what you're complaining about.

I follow a certain Abrahamic faith that requires me to observe a few important rules, such as

- not having an excessively liberal sexual attitude
- not drinking alcohol
- discourage (my own) homosexual impulses if I am clearly heterosexual

Ideally, a conservative, right-leaning party would best suit my observances, but I would vote for the left-oriented party that allows homosexual marriages, questionable content on TV, pornographic productions and to generally secularize our society.

I believe that the one who follows his true faith does not need any intervention, rather, the said person would moderate him/herself and possibly discourage others from being an excessive drinker or sleeping around with too many people. In spite of these temptations, a true believer would take the opportunity to concentrate and strengthen his own faith, rather than criticizing others.

Are there many more like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG? What are the conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint?

I suppose I fall into that category. Though now I do not religiously disagree with homosexuality (I feel that the Christian spiritualism, and the dependance on grace, and a relationship with Christ do not in any way necessarily forbid something like orientation, it is in one's heart and mind that they belong to the faith, not in one's partner), even when I felt that homosexuality was non-Christian I still supported the legalization of gay marriage, we live in America (well, I do) not Jesusland.

Something like pornography is certainly an individuals choice.

Abortion is something (one of the few things, actually) about which I take the conservative side, I feel personhood begins at conception, and so my beliefs are seemingly obvious from there on.

- discourage (my own) homosexual impulses if I am clearly heterosexual If you're clearly heterosexual, where are your homosexual impulses coming from?
And if you're unclearly heterosexual, would you still be obligated to discourage these impulses?

Intolerance does not equal hidden. We're intolerant of a lot of things that aren't hidden.

For instance, when I was a cop, we got called about once a week from some old lady because Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses were out in her neighborhood proselytizing. That woman is intolerant of their beliefs, as their beliefs specifically call for them to go out proselytizing. SCOTUS ruled that we are not allowed, as a governmental entity, to restrict their proselytizing work in any way.

Ergo, the government is tolerant of it. However, not all citizens are.

Since this was the last post on the page and nobody read it. I've quoted myself.... there's now a black hole opening somewhere.

I think the dictionary would disagree with you about the meaning of tolerance. But anywho, let me ask you this. If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths? The society is forcing its views of faith being a private thing on people who believe that its necessary for them to share their faith.

I think you misunderstand the fundamental difference between "forcing" and "proselytizing".

You can stand on the street corner and talk about your religion all you want. You just can't force me to listen.

Old Testament.

Matthew 5:18 also says the OT laws are still relevent.

Yeah, and the direct command from God to kill people who worship different Gods. But we dont let you do that either. We're so intolerant!

You have no point. You have a Christian persecution complex. Your point is silly.

I believe that Matt. 5:18 was at least partially selective, as Jesus Himself broke some OT laws. I am a Christian and have a tattoo, and more plans on the way, the shirt I'm currently wearing is probably a mixed-fiber shirt, and my wife used to be a Wiccan.

"The Bible" typically refers to the NT for the purposes of theological interpretation, as Jesus is the authority. I try not to judge others, I try, so long as it is up to me to be at peace with my neighbor, and I act in love for God, and mankind in general. I respect my secular government, and the authority they have over me.

The west is starting to develop intolerance towards many religious people in general, and specifically towards Christianity, I have experienced it firsthand, I've also seen intolerance towards other religions, and even broad philosophies, but that boss was a jerk anyway.

Intolerance does not equal hidden. We're intolerant of a lot of things that aren't hidden.

For instance, when I was a cop, we got called about once a week from some old lady because Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses were out in her neighborhood proselytizing. That woman is intolerant of their beliefs, as their beliefs specifically call for them to go out proselytizing. SCOTUS ruled that we are not allowed, as a governmental entity, to restrict their proselytizing work in any way.

Ergo, the government is tolerant of it. However, not all citizens are.

Which is something of the now. Governments weren't always tolerant of religion. (i.e. Rome vs. Judaism)

Other than that, QFT.

The west is starting to develop intolerance towards many religious people in general, and specifically towards Christianity, I have experienced it firsthand

Im going to call bullshit.

Well my definition of "homosexual impulses" may differ from everyone elses. It isn't so much "that ass would make a good pounding" as I think of it as "wow nice ass" or "niceee bod."

Everybody is a little gay aren't they? What I mean by clearly heterosexual is that I cannot imagine being in a relationship with another man.

I think you misunderstand the fundamental difference between "forcing" and "proselytizing".

You can stand on the street corner and talk about your religion all you want. You just can't force me to listen.

See, thats the problem with modern America, we should be able to force you to listen!

Nah, I'm just kidding.

...or am I? ...

:tongue:

Yes come back to me when you read somewhere in the Bible that its an okay to do so

thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

Exodus 22:18

Well my definition of "homosexual impulses" may differ from everyone elses. It isn't so much "that ass would make a good pounding" as I think of it as "wow nice ass" or "niceee bod."

Everybody is a little gay aren't they? What I mean by clearly heterosexual is that I cannot imagine being in a relationship with another man.

Why would that need to be suppressed?

And if you're unclearly heterosexual, would you still be obligated to discourage these impulses?

I really don't know. I am not homosexual, or have had much contact with the homosexual culture, so I don't think I'm in any position to make a judgement about homosexual people.

I guess I would have to further study my scripture, the prophet's traditions, and travel the world to study different perspectives in different sociological contexts to make my own decision. Traditionally, most men were expected to have certain homoerotic, and for some, even homo-erotic-pedophilic urges that should be surpress through self stimulation and constant prayer. Perhaps this viewpoint has changed, and like I said, I am in no position to speak for my religion.

Why would that need to be suppressed?

Because if I don't want a life-long relationship with any men, I personally don't think it's healthy to start any partnership just for the sex.

If it were okay to be sexually active irregardless of the inter-personal feelings, why is it not okay for marriages to be open relationships? That is what I believe to be an important distinction.

I love how Zilam's like "It doesn't say that, answer me properly" but when it turns out to be true he buggers off.

Because if I don't want a life-long relationship with any men, I personally don't think it's healthy to start any partnership just for the sex.

If it were okay to be sexually active irregardless of the inter-personal feelings, why is it not okay for marriages to be open relationships? That is what I believe to be an important distinction.

Who says it's not okay for marriages to be open relationships?

For instance, when I was a cop, we got called about once a week from some old lady because Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses were out in her neighborhood proselytizing. That woman is intolerant of their beliefs, as their beliefs specifically call for them to go out proselytizing. SCOTUS ruled that we are not allowed, as a governmental entity, to restrict their proselytizing work in any way.

Then here's an interesting question. While the JW/Mormons do have a right to proselytize their religion and have the right to, they don't have the right to trespass onto personal property. Or does their religion exempt them from trespass laws? If a person, such as this old lady - let's assume she isn't prejudice for the sake of this question - didn't want them coming onto her property, and she had asked them to leave in the past but they kept coming back, wouldn't the police have a responsibility to deal with the trespasser, regardless of their intent?

Then here's an interesting question. While the JW/Mormons do have a right to proselytize their religion and have the right to, they don't have the right to trespass onto personal property. Or does their religion exempt them from trespass laws? If a person, such as this old lady - let's assume she isn't prejudice for the sake of this question - didn't want them coming onto her property, and she had asked them to leave in the past but they kept coming back, wouldn't the police have a responsibility to deal with the trespasser, regardless of their intent?That's correct. But it appears that she didn't just demand that they stay away from HER property (of course she has every right to exclude anyone she doesn't like from her property), but was not wanting them anywhere in the neighborhood.

That's correct. But it appears that she didn't just demand that they stay away from HER property (of course she has every right to anyone she doesn't like from her property), but was not wanting them anywhere in the neighborhood.

I quite agree. If it was her property, it is one thing, but the entire neighbourhood is another. In any case, I do wonder if the actions of these individuals could be considered legal if they repeatedly go onto a property in which they are not welcome.

Then here's an interesting question. While the JW/Mormons do have a right to proselytize their religion and have the right to, they don't have the right to trespass onto personal property. Or does their religion exempt them from trespass laws? If a person, such as this old lady - let's assume she isn't prejudice for the sake of this question - didn't want them coming onto her property, and she had asked them to leave in the past but they kept coming back, wouldn't the police have a responsibility to deal with the trespasser, regardless of their intent?

Yes.

I can't speak for Missionaries from the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I can tell you that Mormon Missionaries are not supposed to return to a home if they're told by someone who lives there to stay away. This is because of the law but it says to do this in the Bible anyway. What happens is that particular address is recorded and placed on a list maintained by the mission leader. After that, they won't return to the same address for some fixed number of years.

Who says it's not okay for marriages to be open relationships?

Oh I don't know, like infidelity being legal grounds for divorce? Your household may be different, but I believe a situation like this --

Husband: "Hi honey! I met this great guy at the office today, and he invited me for dinner at his place. I might just get lucky tonight, so I'll call you if I won't be making it home tonight."

Wife: "Okay have fun! I'll keep the bed open in case he doesn't turn out to be your type!"

-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

We don't let them persecute others and burn witches at the stake. We're so intolerant!

Dammit, but she turned me into a newt!

Yes.

I can't speak for Missionaries from the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I can tell you that Mormon Missionaries are not supposed to return to a home if they're told by someone who lives there to stay away. This is because of the law but it says to do this in the Bible anyway. What happens is that particular address is recorded and placed on a list maintained by the mission leader. After that, they won't return to the same address for some fixed number of years.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar system - a "do-not-call list" which is published on the back of their territory cards.

If memory serves, they call on them every 3 years to make sure that the same person still lives there and is still not interested. They do not attempt to preach to that person when they visit - just ensuring the person didn't move.

In answer to Kyro, if you have a "no trespassing sign" clearly visible, JW's are directed not to visit your residence. However, they may call or write instead.

Oh I don't know, like infidelity being legal grounds for divorce? Your household may be different, but I believe a situation like this --

Husband: "Hi honey! I met this great guy at the office today, and he invited me for dinner at his place. I might just get lucky tonight, so I'll call you if I won't be making it home tonight."

Wife: "Okay have fun! I'll keep the bed open in case he doesn't turn out to be your type!"

-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

Universally accepted? Of course not. I doubt you'll find ANY "universally accepted" viewpoints on marriage, or in fact on anything whatsoever. So what? How does that in any way indicate that those who do accept it are wrong?

As for the OP, you have an exceedingly strange idea of what constitutes hypocrisy. I think most sane human beings are okay with the idea of a great many things they don't personally want to do being legal.

Universally accepted? Of course not. I doubt you'll find ANY "universally accepted" viewpoints on marriage, or in fact on anything whatsoever. So what? How does that in any way indicate that those who do accept it are wrong?

Way to jump to conclusions and being a troll. Please ignore my posts and do not reply in this thread.


As for the OP, you have an exceedingly strange idea of what constitutes hypocrisy. I think most sane human beings are okay with the idea of a great many things they don't personally want to do being legal.

Not really, "most" applies largely to the NSG population. Where I live, many Christians and Muslims are openly against legalization of homosexual marriages.

Then here's an interesting question. While the JW/Mormons do have a right to proselytize their religion and have the right to, they don't have the right to trespass onto personal property. Or does their religion exempt them from trespass laws? If a person, such as this old lady - let's assume she isn't prejudice for the sake of this question - didn't want them coming onto her property, and she had asked them to leave in the past but they kept coming back, wouldn't the police have a responsibility to deal with the trespasser, regardless of their intent?

That is correct... trespassing can be prosecuted, if the person who owns the property clearly communicates that they do not wish that person to be there. Whatever form of communication that is must be clear and stated.

For instance:

No Trespassing
No Proselytizing
No Religious Workers

However, certain signs do not apply to them:

No Solicitors
No Salesmen
No Hunters
Etc

Now, if it's also stated never to come back, we must remember that it does not transfer between individuals. So if the homeowner A tells Mormon A never to come back, and Mormon B comes back, then no law has been broken. There's no way to prove that Mormon B knew about the prohibition against entering the property.

However, both Mormons and JW's have gotten better with their records to keep this from happening in recent years.

Since my particular flavour of theism has no rules, I find it quite easy to avoid hypocrisy.

...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Bottle! Good to see you again.

That's not the point. I am saying that if tolerance is about not forcing beliefs on people, then the West is intolerant to Christianity, atm. Based on that definition do you agree or disagree?

If by "The West" you include the UK that is absolutely laughable, as Christianity is our state religion, and we have a state church. Now, to the real point...

I follow a certain Abrahamic faith that requires me to observe a few important rules, such as

- not having an excessively liberal sexual attitude
- not drinking alcohol
- discourage (my own) homosexual impulses if I am clearly heterosexual*

...
Ideally, a conservative, right-leaning party would best suit my observances, but I would vote for the left-oriented party that allows homosexual marriages, questionable content on TV, pornographic productions and to generally secularize our society.

I believe that the one who follows his true faith does not need any intervention, rather, the said person would moderate him/herself and possibly discourage others from being an excessive drinker or sleeping around with too many people. In spite of these temptations, a true believer would take the opportunity to concentrate and strengthen his own faith, rather than criticizing others.

Are there many more like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG? What are the conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint?

I struggle with some aspects of religion. It takes a fairly dim (if somewhat variable) view of homosexuality, whilst I have no issues with it. It's not something I've fully reconciled. To justify it to myself I go with the position that there is no religious/state sanctioning of any relationship needed. Wether or not it's hypocritical or deliberately de-emphasising one point and emphasising another is tough to call, as varying interpretations are part and parcel of the belief system. If one is to focus only on mythology and ignore cultural writings, it's possible to come to positive conclusions, but that is taking too many liberties with our knowledge, in my view.

That aside, there are relatively few things I disagree with in my religion. Though I've had to accept that some of my previously held views were pretty seriously out of line, and re-consider them, this one is difficult for me, even though I understand the reasons for those teachings.

Way to jump to conclusions and being a troll. Please ignore my posts and do not reply in this thread.

...what the heck, dude? I asked QUESTIONS. Rather reasonable ones, at that. How on earth is that either trolling or jumping to conclusions? If you cannot stand being asked questions, a discussion forum may not be the place for you.


Not really, "most" applies largely to the NSG population. Where I live, many Christians and Muslims are openly against legalization of homosexual marriages.

I am aware of that, given that I do not live under a rock. You may notice that I did not specify homosexual marriages. I questioned your definition of hypocrisy, as it would appear to make the overwhelming majority of the world "hypocrites." To use a specific example, I have yet to meet a single Jew that feels the eating of pork should be criminalized, despite their feelings that they should not do so themselves. Your definition would seem to suggest that makes them "hypocrites." I do not believe this actually makes sense. Do you, really?

I am not hypocritically religious. I am magically delicious.

Oh I don't know, like infidelity being legal grounds for divorce? Your household may be different, but I believe a situation like this --

Husband: "Hi honey! I met this great guy at the office today, and he invited me for dinner at his place. I might just get lucky tonight, so I'll call you if I won't be making it home tonight."

Wife: "Okay have fun! I'll keep the bed open in case he doesn't turn out to be your type!"

-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

So what if it's not universally accepted? That's utterly irrelevant to whether it's okay or not. If both partners in the marriage are okay with it being open, what's the problem? Who is being hurt here?

Dammit, but she turned me into a newt!

But you clearly got better, so I don't see what's wrong.

To use a specific example, I have yet to meet a single Jew that feels the eating of pork should be criminalized, despite their feelings that they should not do so themselves.
In Israel, such Jews do exist, as well as some who not only want driving on the Sabbath to be illegal, but also take it upon themselves to throw rocks at Saturday drivers.

In Israel, such Jews do exist, as well as some who not only want driving on the Sabbath to be illegal, but also take it upon themselves to throw rocks at Saturday drivers.

I wonder if there's anyone equally ready to throw cars at Saturday rock-throwers?

In Israel, such Jews do exist, as well as some who not only want driving on the Sabbath to be illegal, but also take it upon themselves to throw rocks at Saturday drivers.

... a fact which strikes me as ironic, considering that one could argue that the act of roving around the streets looking for moving cars to throw rocks at is an even better example of "work" than the mere act of operating a motor vehicle.

I guess that means they are hypocritically religious...

...what the heck, dude? I asked QUESTIONS. Rather reasonable ones, at that. How on earth is that either trolling or jumping to conclusions? If you cannot stand being asked questions, a discussion forum may not be the place for you.

You are clearly ignoring a social convention that it is not alright for married couples to be having sexual relations with other people. I don't think I have to pull up statistics that cite infidelity as a significant factor of most divorces.

I said that you are a troll because your tone is very provocative and denoting, that which is not worthy of engaging in a debate with, unlike the emotional indifference LG and many other replies have shown. You may not live under


I am aware of that, given that I do not live under a rock. You may notice that I did not specify homosexual marriages. I questioned your definition of hypocrisy, as it would appear to make the overwhelming majority of the world "hypocrites." To use a specific example, I have yet to meet a single Jew that feels the eating of pork should be criminalized, despite their feelings that they should not do so themselves. Your definition would seem to suggest that makes them "hypocrites." I do not believe this actually makes sense. Do you, really?

I can see that you did not take my previous post in account. You may not have encountered religious people who wished to enforce their beliefs on others, but I mentioned that there are a significant number of orthodox Muslims and Christians who believes certain aspects of their faith should be supported by the government. An example is the involvement in proposition 8 in California by religious groups.

Hypocrisy is a term I used to mock certain interpretations of religion (such as the holy Sharia) and schools of thought (Islamism) that sought to synonymize religious law with society. Afterall, orthodox Islam and certain sects of Christianity covers all aspects of society and lifestyle. If you do not achknowledge the existence of such religious mentality, that's fine, in your world most religious people are happy with keeping their religion to themselves. I initiated this dialogue to explore other people's perspective on what is the ideal separation of the church and state. If you're not going to contribute, but derail and attack accepted norms like keeping keeping fidelity in marriages, please do so somewhere else.

In Israel, such Jews do exist, as well as some who not only want driving on the Sabbath to be illegal, but also take it upon themselves to throw rocks at Saturday drivers.

Yeah, I figured there had to be a few such somewhere - it's not like any religion/country/etc. is spared at least a few complete asses in their midst.

Still, the point stands that MOST people tend to be okay with the freedom of others to do at least SOME things they disagree with. Even those rock-throwing morons are probably largely okay with others' choices to, say, eat kosher turkey sandwiches rather than kosher pastrami sandwiches, even if they personally don't like eating turkey.

So what if it's not universally accepted? That's utterly irrelevant to whether it's okay or not. If both partners in the marriage are okay with it being open, what's the problem? Who is being hurt here?

That isn't the point. I brought that point up because --

It is my belief, and the belief of many others that consummation does not involve a third party.

I never said that infidelity should be criminalized, nor have I specifically attacked adultering married couples. If both parties are fine with extra-marital affairs, more power to them.

I was asked why I don't think I should engage in a sex-only relationship. I told them my perspective on marriage, and also included in my statement that most married couples are likeminded, because it is a norm. I'm not justifiying my viewpoint, I'm merely stating what I think.

Please stop derailing the topic by needlessly attacking my viewpoints, unless you can disprove my statement by providing me with a statistic that shows most married couples are okay with infidelity.

... a fact which strikes me as ironic, considering that one could argue that the act of roving around the streets looking for moving cars to throw rocks at is an even better example of "work" than the mere act of operating a motor vehicle.

Sabbath breakers suck, throw rocks at them?

YStill, the point stands that MOST people tend to be okay

Your point would be relevant to this topic if I implied that "most religious people have an agenda, and I am one of the few who is here to disprove that myth." Seeing as I have not done that, and instead tried to open dialogue to expanding this particular viewpoint I have, your point is not relevant to my thread.

There always is Stormfront if you want to be emotionally engaged in a discussion.

You are clearly ignoring a social convention that it is not alright for married couples to be having sexual relations with other people. I don't think I have to pull up statistics that cite infidelity as a significant factor of most divorces.

I am "clearly" ignoring nothing of the sort, seeing as I explicitly said that there are certainly people who are not okay with open marriages before going on to question the relevance of "social conventions" to this discussion. Do please try to read my posts before shrieking about them.

I said that you are a troll because your tone is very provocative and denoting, that which is not worthy of engaging in a debate with, unlike the emotional indifference LG and many other replies have shown.

I'm terribly sorry you find me "unworthy," but I'm pretty sure the one being derogatory (not "denoting") here is you. You asked a question. I answered it, and asked a follow-up question. You proceeded to throw a tantrum and call me a troll. You will notice that, about three posts later, someone else answered your question almost precisely the same way I did. Are they "unworthy," too?


I can see that you did not take my previous post in account. You may not have encountered religious people who wished to enforce their beliefs on others, but I mentioned that there are a significant number of orthodox Muslims and Christians who believes certain aspects of their faith should be supported by the government. An example is the involvement in proposition 8 in California by religious groups.

If you can "see" that, you may need to trying looking a little harder at the actual words on the screen. How exactly did I "not take your post into account" by responding directly to it? Again, I am more than aware that many people feel that some aspects of their personal preferences should be enforced on others. For the third or fourth time now, let me say again that even those people largely do not enforce ALL of said personal preferences, and your use of "hypocrisy" would seem to cover all of those people. Good grief.

Hypocrisy is a term I used to mock certain interpretations of religion (such as the holy Sharia) and schools of thought (Islamism) that sought to synonymize religious law with society. Afterall, orthodox Islam and certain sects of Christianity covers all aspects of society and lifestyle. If you do not achknowledge the existence of such religious mentality, that's fine, in your world most religious people are happy with keeping their religion to themselves.

I wish.

I initiated this dialogue to explore other people's perspective on what is the ideal separation of the church and state. If you're not going to contribute, but derail and attack accepted norms like keeping keeping fidelity in marriages, please do so somewhere else.

Oh, this is adorable.

Please, please, find an example of me "attacking keeping fidelity in marriages." Heck, find an example of me "attacking keeping fidelity" in even casual relationships. Given that I have publicly discussed my immense disdain for liars and cheaters on these forums quite a few times, you should have fun finding those quotes.

Sabbath breakers suck, throw rocks at them?

I was thinking of hitting them with sausage links just for the fun of it.

Look at me, I have 100 posts in a brand new forum and wish to comment on regular posters with established reputations!

Pay attention to me my opinion is relevant!

That isn't the point. I brought that point up because --

It is my belief, and the belief of many others that consummation does not involve a third party.

I never said that infidelity should be criminalized, nor have I specifically attacked adultering married couples. If both parties are fine with extra-marital affairs, more power to them.

I was asked why I don't think I should engage in a sex-only relationship. I told them my perspective on marriage, and also included in my statement that most married couples are likeminded, because it is a norm. I'm not justifiying my viewpoint, I'm merely stating what I think.

Please stop derailing the topic by needlessly attacking my viewpoints, unless you can disprove my statement by providing me with a statistic that shows most married couples are okay with infidelity.
It's entirely the point. To recap the conversation on open marriages:

You posted:
Because if I don't want a life-long relationship with any men, I personally don't think it's healthy to start any partnership just for the sex.

If it were okay to be sexually active irregardless of the inter-personal feelings, why is it not okay for marriages to be open relationships? That is what I believe to be an important distinction.

In response to which, it was asked:
Who says it's not okay for marriages to be open relationships?

You replied with:

Oh I don't know, like infidelity being legal grounds for divorce? Your household may be different, but I believe a situation like this --

Husband: "Hi honey! I met this great guy at the office today, and he invited me for dinner at his place. I might just get lucky tonight, so I'll call you if I won't be making it home tonight."

Wife: "Okay have fun! I'll keep the bed open in case he doesn't turn out to be your type!"

-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

So, you used popular support to attempt to support your contention that open marriages are wrong.

So it is entirely relevant to ask how popular opinion has any relevancy to the ethics of the situation.

Sweet crap, dude, if you think Poli is a troll you're going to have a rough time here. What lily field corner of the internet did you come from?

Sweet crap, dude, if you think Poli is a troll you're going to have a rough time here. What lily field corner of the internet did you come from?

Personally, my favorite part is how he goes straight from "I would like to hear NSG's position on this." to "STOP DERAILING MY THREAD BY HAVING A POSITION ON THIS." :D

Personally, my favorite part is how he goes straight from "I would like to hear NSG's position on this." to "STOP DERAILING MY THREAD BY HAVING A POSITION ON THIS." :D

how dare you ask him questions? Troll, go back to stormfront!

Sweet crap, dude, if you think Poli is a troll you're going to have a rough time here. What lily field corner of the internet did you come from?
Heh, wait till he gets a load of me, when I get to my own computer. (you trolls and pixies and innocent OPs are too salty in your talk for the office I've been at today.)

There always is Stormfront if you want to be emotionally engaged in a discussion.

Aww, did those meanies at Stormfront make you cry?

This is what happened, feel free to correct me if you must:

Why would that need to be suppressed?

1. LG asked me why I should supress homoerotic urges


Because if I don't want a life-long relationship with any men, I personally don't think it's healthy to start any partnership just for the sex.

If it were okay to be sexually active irregardless of the inter-personal feelings, why is it not okay for marriages to be open relationships? That is what I believe to be an important distinction.

2. I cited social convention of most married couples not being okay with extra-marital sex.


Who says it's not okay for marriages to be open relationships?

3. LG asked what is wrong with open relationships


Oh I don't know, like infidelity being legal grounds for divorce? Your household may be different, but I believe a situation like this --

Husband: "Hi honey! I met this great guy at the office today, and he invited me for dinner at his place. I might just get lucky tonight, so I'll call you if I won't be making it home tonight."

Wife: "Okay have fun! I'll keep the bed open in case he doesn't turn out to be your type!"

-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

4. I said that (while misusing universally accepted, replacing it with the term "widely accepted" would still have launched the shit brick catapults) most people aren't okay with open marriages, similar to the hypothetical scenario I mentioned above.

A good argument at this point would have been "no, most married couples are fine with infidelity [cites source]," which I have yet to see. If I hadn't made it clear enough, I will do so now:

1. open marriages are uncommon
2. most married couples are not okay with their spouses seeing other people
3. the morality of open marriages has little to do with the validity of points 1 and 2




more words

If it makes you feel better, I surrender to your arguments. Now please move on, this thread has nothing more for you.

I'm an agnostic who thinks that organized religion does more harm to spirit than atheism.

If, however, you can adhere to the tenets of your religion without trying to impose them on those who disagree with you, more power to you.

4. I said that (while misusing universally accepted, replacing it with the term "widely accepted" would still have launched the shit brick catapults) most people aren't okay with open marriages, similar to the hypothetical scenario I mentioned above.

A good argument at this point would have been "no, most married couples are fine with infidelity [cites source],"

No, a good argument to counter a claim of "universal acceptance" is merely "some married couples are fine with it".

I do not believe our boldfaced assumption that you mean what you say and said what you meant was a wrong one, but your failure to say what you wanted to say is strictly your fault, not ours.

Moreover your terminology is wrong, an "open marriage" is not one that's "fine with infidelity", it's one that's fine with the couple engaging in sex outside of the coupling. That's not infidelity.


If I hadn't made it clear enough,

as you readily admitted you used the wrong words I will state again, your failure to be clear enough was your error, not ours.

I will do so now:

1. open marriages are uncommon
2. most married couples are not okay with their spouses seeing other people
3. the morality of open marriages has little to do with the validity of points 1 and 2

And if you had simply said THAT instead of stumbling over your own feet and then accusing everyone who pointed that fact out as being a "troll" you would have been a lot better off.

But you didn't, so here we are.

Personally, my favorite part is how he goes straight from "I would like to hear NSG's position on this." to "STOP DERAILING MY THREAD BY HAVING A POSITION ON THIS."

Read my objective:

Are there many more like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG? What are the conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint?

My viewpoint and objective of this thread was to see what is NSG's opinion on having a politically passive religion, a la separation of church and state, and to bring about inner change rather than enforcing change on other people.

How does that in any way indicate that those who do accept it are wrong?

Your point is to argue my position on the morality of open marriages. That's quite a stretch from my primary objective of dialogue to

[discuss with] like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG[, and expand on] conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint

No, a good argument to counter a claim of "universal acceptance" is merely "some married couples are fine with it".

I do not believe our boldfaced assumption that you mean what you say and said what you meant was a wrong one, but your failure to say what you wanted to say is strictly your fault, not ours.

Moreover your terminology is wrong, an "open marriage" is not one that's "fine with infidelity", it's one that's fine with the couple engaging in sex outside of the coupling. That's not infidelity.


as you readily admitted you used the wrong words I will state again, your failure to be clear enough was your error, not ours.

The argument of "troll" was not primarily on my choice of words:

Universally accepted? Of course not. I doubt you'll find ANY "universally accepted" viewpoints on marriage, or in fact on anything whatsoever. So what? How does that in any way indicate that those who do accept it are wrong?

I don't think it's misleading to translate this quote to:

So what if open marriages are not a universally accepted viewpoint: hence the derail.



And if you had simply said THAT instead of stumbling over your own feet and then accusing everyone who pointed that fact out as being a "troll" you would have been a lot better off.

Read above, and I have recognized my failures by hammering out my intentions in my previous post -- which is still being challenged.


But you didn't, so here we are.

Well thank you, I really appreciate it :rolleyes: seeing as you surely would not argue for the sake of yourselves!

Look at me, I have 100 posts in a brand new forum and wish to comment on regular posters with established reputations!

Pay attention to me my opinion is relevant!

What the hell? I've lurked the forums since I registered in May 2006 (see join date), whereas your profile shows that you've joined a little less than a year after me. I have very little posts because most of the "debates" on here don't need further clogging up with redundant viewpoints, or troll feeding.


If you for some reason have been here longer than your profile suggests, I apologize.

1. open marriages are uncommon
2. most married couples are not okay with their spouses seeing other people
3. the morality of open marriages has little to do with the validity of points 1 and 2


If the ethics of open marriages has little to do with points 1 and 2, then why bring up points 1 and 2 in response to a question said ethics?

I questioned your definition of hypocrisy, as it would appear to make the overwhelming majority of the world "hypocrites."
The overwhelming majority of humans aren't hypocrites? :confused:

I said that you are a troll because your tone is very provocative and denoting, that which is not worthy of engaging in a debate with, unlike the emotional indifference LG and many other replies have shown.
Why should everyone be showing emotional indifference? An emotional person is likely to bring a different perspective to the debate and whether they're right or wrong that brain-storming is generally a good thing. An emotional person can make you stop and think just as much as a cold heartless bastard with a well thought out argument and in the end aren't most of us here to find thought provoking posts to read?

Also where's the fun in that?

Read my objective:



My viewpoint and objective of this thread was to see what is NSG's opinion on having a politically passive religion, a la separation of church and state, and to bring about inner change rather than enforcing change on other people.



Your point is to argue my position on the morality of open marriages. That's quite a stretch from my primary objective of dialogue to

I have a really crazy idea for you. Ready?

If you don't want people to discuss your position on the morality of open marriages, try not explicitly asking them to discuss your position on the morality of open marriages.

I believe a situation like this --*snip*-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

It's crazy, I know, but it just might work!

Asking position != oh a debate! this is what I think about the morality of open marriages *penis wagging*
This is an Internet forum, and NSG at that, if this what what your plan was hinging on it was doomed from the start :P

This thread was having some good dialogue until it was, with some of my involvement, systematically burned to the crisp of NSG helldump. I have made several errors in choice of word, which I have rectified in posts preceding, and there were entirely unnecessary penis waggings and lawyering by the "prominent" members of the board.

I don't think it's a bad idea to stop the crap shooting, whilst being mature enough to let the thread die or continue in respect to the objective of the thread.

I follow a certain Abrahamic faith that requires me to observe a few important rules, such as

- not having an excessively liberal sexual attitude
- not drinking alcohol
- discourage (my own) homosexual impulses if I am clearly heterosexual*

* there seems to be a confusion - I think it would be better if I switch homosexual with homoerotic thoughts, such as "nice ass," not "nice ass -- I'd really like to pound that"

Ideally, a conservative, right-leaning party would best suit my observances, but I would vote for the left-oriented party that allows homosexual marriages, questionable content on TV, pornographic productions and to generally secularize our society.

I believe that the one who follows his true faith does not need any intervention, rather, the said person would moderate him/herself and possibly discourage others from being an excessive drinker or sleeping around with too many people. In spite of these temptations, a true believer would take the opportunity to concentrate and strengthen his own faith, rather than criticizing others.

Are there many more like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG? What are the conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint?
Okay, I'm going to come in and pretend that all the foregoing argument never happened. I'm going to refer only to the OP.

I've read the OP, and frankly, I have no idea why you are telling us these things or what it is you are asking us. What do you want to talk about in this thread?

Are you asking who else in NSG occasionally compromises their most dearly held beliefs for...some undefined reason?

I would hope the answer would be very, very few. I know I never compromise my most dearly held beliefs. I cannot tell whether even you do or not, based on your OP, which to be blunt, does not make much sense.

That's just one guess as to what you might have been trying to get at. Did I get even close?

I wonder whether I am wagging my nonexistent penis or my nonexistent law degree by answering questions and asking additional ones in response. Either way, sounds fun! :tongue:

I wonder whether I am wagging my nonexistent penis or my nonexistent law degree by answering questions and asking additional ones in response. Either way, sounds fun! :tongue:
Roll up the degree and wag both! :D

Are there many more like-minded "hypocrites" here at NSG? What are the conservative Christians/other religious people's opinions on my viewpoint?

You have your more conservative beliefs, but you don't think it is your place to force those beliefs on other people. Sounds good and rather non-hypocritical to me.


I think the dictionary would disagree with you about the meaning of tolerance. But anywho, let me ask you this. If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths?

No. Unless proselytizing is illegal?

The society is forcing its views of faith being a private thing on people who believe that its necessary for them to share their faith.

No, individuals are refusing to engage with those who proselytize. That does not mean that said people are intolerant of them.

Let's take another example. I have no problem with the fact that other people like to engage in anal sex. However, I am very much not interested in such actions and, as such, will not engage in anal sex with them. Does that make me intolerant towards those who do enjoy it?

If not, why would choosing not to engage in religious discussion make me intolerant towards those who wish to engage in it?

I think the dictionary would disagree with you about the meaning of tolerance. But anywho, let me ask you this. If tolerance equals not enforcing beliefs on others, than can't we say that Western society as it is now is intolerant to proselytizing faiths? The society is forcing its views of faith being a private thing on people who believe that its necessary for them to share their faith.

Sure. I'm also pretty intolerant of people who feel it necessary to use my house/car/money when those people are not me. I'm a bigot like that.

Yes come back to me when you read somewhere in the Bible that its an okay to do so, as opposed to a direct command from God himself to fulfill the Great Commission, IE share the faith.

...thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?

...thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?I don't think another person's private religious faith harms me one bit. :p

Everybody is a little gay aren't they? What I mean by clearly heterosexual is that I cannot imagine being in a relationship with another man.

No, everyone isn't. You may think everyone has those thoughts, but they don't. Having them doesn't mean you're gay or even bisexual--having homicidal thoughts doesn't make you a murderer, either.

I think you're also confusing sexual attraction with the desire for a relationship. They are not the same thing.

I really don't know. I am not homosexual, or have had much contact with the homosexual culture, so I don't think I'm in any position to make a judgement about homosexual people.

If I've read your posts correctly, you're a celibate virgin in a conservative religion with very little contact with homosexuals, yes? I'd say under those circumstances, it's a little early to rule out the idea that you might be homosexual.

If it were okay to be sexually active irregardless of the inter-personal feelings, why is it not okay for marriages to be open relationships? That is what I believe to be an important distinction.

"Okay" according to who? It may not be according to you, but many people are "okay" with sex without feelings and open marriages.

-- is not exactly a universally accepted viewpoint on marriage... or is it? Television tells me it isn't, and I would like to hear NSG's position on this.

Equal pay for men and women isn't a universally accepted viewpoint--in fact, it appears to be in the minority in the U.S.--but that doesn't make it wrong. An idea's popularity or unpopularity does not determine whether it is ethical (if you can even define ethical...)

Way to jump to conclusions and being a troll. Please ignore my posts and do not reply in this thread.

Poli was perfectly civil and objective. That was uncalled for.

This thread was having some good dialogue until it was, with some of my involvement, systematically burned to the crisp of NSG helldump. I have made several errors in choice of word, which I have rectified in posts preceding, and there were entirely unnecessary penis waggings and lawyering by the "prominent" members of the board.

I think you're the only one who's used the phrase "penis wagging" or even made reference to penises, and I haven't seen any cited case law or threats of litigation, so I think both of these "issues" of largely imagined.

Hypocrisy is do as i say and not as I do.

In other words I say"it is not okay to have pre-marital sex" and then proceed to go out and have sex with anyone I choose to.

I think some of us are trying to figure out what you are really asking?

The separation of church and state is somwhat of a range.

100% full separation of church in state. This theoretical mind you I don't know of any country that is fully like this.

all the way

100% Integrated. This also is theoretical although some states are pretty close.

In the USA I would say we are probably near the middle maybe towards the middle. Although officially we are separated.

I think you may be asking how much should there be?


With regard to the other issues I would say 90% of humans are to some degree conflicted. We struggle with a lot of issues, some of which you mentioned. We want to believe we are doing the "right" things.

With regard to Prop 8 that is an attempt to drag religion back into politics and it is to some degree working which has many people upset. Conservatives see it as an "erosion of the very fabric of American life". The Liberals have been saying something along the lines of "Live and let live"

With regard to Prop 8 that is an attempt to drag religion back into politics and it is to some degree working which has many people upset. Conservatives see it as an "erosion of the very fabric of American life". The Liberals have been saying something along the lines of "Live and let live"

By that, you mean Prop 8 itself dragged religion back into politics, yes?

...thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?

Eh, dont waste your breath. As usual, when shown his claims about his own religion are blatantly wrong, he runs off.

I don't think another person's private religious faith harms me one bit. :p

Exactly. As long as the beliefs of this person do not cross into your personal space, it's all good.

Exactly. As long as the beliefs of this person do not cross into your personal space, it's all good.

Yeah. The problem is, most Christians believe that all non-Christians go to Hell. Given this, it's understandable that they're pretty damn determined to try to convert us. If I believed that I had knowledge of the one way to avoid eternal torment, you'd be damn sure I'd try my hardest to try to spread it to as many people as I could, by pretty much any means necessary.

Eh, dont waste your breath. As usual, when shown his claims about his own religion are blatantly wrong, he runs off.

It doesn't say ANYTHING in the bible about killing witches and I challenge you to show me where it does!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm never coming into this thread again...

Yeah. The problem is, most Christians believe that all non-Christians go to Hell. Given this, it's understandable that they're pretty damn determined to try to convert us. If I believed that I had knowledge of the one way to avoid eternal torment, you'd be damn sure I'd try my hardest to try to spread it to as many people as I could, by pretty much any means necessary.

I never encounter that moral dilemma. Everyone's free to believe what they feel like.

I never encounter that moral dilemma. Everyone's free to believe what they feel like.

probably because you don't believe the same. There is some sympathy to the position. Let's say you believed, you TRULY believed, that I, me, Neo Art, am due for an eternity of endless, inconceivable torment. Talking tortures beyond mortal understanding. Too much for any man to bear. No escape, no relent, no relief.

Ever.

And you TRULY believed that.

Wouldn't you do whatever you could to save me from that?

Yes come back to me when you read somewhere in the Bible that its an okay to do so, as opposed to a direct command from God himself to fulfill the Great Commission, IE share the faith.

Here you go :

Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not a witch to live."
Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch."

Here ya go :

Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not a witch to live."
Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch."

yes dear, I'm aware, I was more making reference to a modus operendi of someone..

probably because you don't believe the same. There is some sympathy to the position. Let's say you believed, you TRULY believed, that I, me, Neo Art, am due for an eternity of endless, inconceivable torment. Talking tortures beyond mortal understanding. Too much for any man to bear. No escape, no relent, no relief.

Ever.

And you TRULY believed that.

Wouldn't you do whatever you could to save me from that?

Point taken. However, there is very little the Christian in question can do, really. It's all up to yourself, according to what they believe. That's why they always go on so much about free will.
What annoys me is that apparently, god gave everyone free will to decide whatever they wanted, and then left us alone as long as we live. Only his follower can't seem to extend the same courtesy to us heretics.

yes dear, I'm aware, I was more making reference to a modus operendi of someone..

I know, I quoted the wrong post. Sorry... :$

Point taken. However, there is very little the Christian in question can do, really. It's all up to yourself, according to what they believe. That's why they always go on so much about free will.
What annoys me is that apparently, god gave everyone free will to decide whatever they wanted, and then left us alone as long as we live. Only his follower can't seem to extend the same courtesy to us heretics.

Well, for one, many believe that they can convince people of the Truth.(or, the Truth as they see it.) They believe that many people simple don't understand Christianity. Or that they haven't seen the evidence. Or even, it often seems, they believe that people haven't heard of Jesus. It seems ridiculous to us, but that's what they believe.

But even still, let's say you have a tenth of a percent chance to save somebody from that fate. Wouldn't you go for it? Even if you have a low chance of success, the "reward" if you do succeed is essentially infinite-- you prevent somebody from suffering an infinitely bad fate and instead grant them a chance at an infinitely good one.

It doesn't say ANYTHING in the bible about killing witches and I challenge you to show me where it does!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm never coming into this thread again...

It probably does in the OT somewhere. (found it: Exodus 22:18) We must then assume that fundamenalist Jews must go around killing Wiccans.

But we don't see that, even in neighbourhoods with lots of them. Hmm.

So, either they are being 'hypocritically religious' by not following that particular law, or that law is actually more complicated than the simple phrase suggests. This latter option is corroborated by the fact that Saul visits a witch in 1 Samuel 28 (verse 7 onwards). I imagine that the rules about how to actually kill a witch are complicated and further elaborated elsewhere in Judaic legal and religious lore.

Well, for one, many believe that they can convince people of the Truth.(or, the Truth as they see it.) They believe that many people simple don't understand Christianity. Or that they haven't seen the evidence. Or even, it often seems, they believe that people haven't heard of Jesus. It seems ridiculous to us, but that's what they believe.

But even still, let's say you have a tenth of a percent chance to save somebody from that fate. Wouldn't you go for it? Even if you have a low chance of success, the "reward" if you do succeed is essentially infinite-- you prevent somebody from suffering an infinitely bad fate and instead grant them a chance at an infinitely good one.

Let's turn that around, shall we?
I personally believe that religious people, especially those following Abrahamic religions, are wasting a good deal of their life and happiness for nothing.
They waste time on things like prayer, attending church and the like, they submit themselves to unnecessary pressure if they don't conform to whatever their chosen brand of faith demands, there are endless guild trips about things which should actually make them feel good, the list is long. I do think they inflict unnecessary and pointless psychological damage on themselves and their children (I have been one of those children, so I can account first-hand for that).

Yet I don't walk around door to door trying to tell people to stop wasting their lifes, and to have a good lie-in on Sundays.
I don't pay good money to print leaflets, posters, TV programs, ads, etc. to try and make people see that sin is an inherently silly concept.
I don't start citizen initiatives to remove children from religious families to spare them the mental pain and anguish.

I plain leave them in peace. While I believe they are wasting their lives, I also believe that their lives are theirs to waste anyway they see fit. And I don't even have god as a leading example here. I've just got a bit of sense in my head.

By that, you mean Prop 8 itself dragged religion back into politics, yes?

Yes, very much so there is likely few other reasons for this legislation. Either way really. The areas in question California and Arizona. California is surprising to some degree as it is not seen as a "right" wing kind of place. Usually coastal cities are more "progressive". Saying of course New York followed suit but the difference being we didn't seek legislation from preventing it "ever" in the future.

I think it sets a bad precedence for other States.

Whether religion dragged prop 8 and itself back into politics or vice versa the end is the same.

The State claims we do not want "Gay Marriage" for different reasons. I would say to those challenging this legislation ask them to list them.


And now from the religious standpoint

"Let him or her who is without sin cast the first stone"

It probably does in the OT somewhere. (found it: Exodus 22:18) We must then assume that fundamenalist Jews must go around killing Wiccans.

But we don't see that, even in neighbourhoods with lots of them. Hmm.

So, either they are being 'hypocritically religious' by not following that particular law, or that law is actually more complicated than the simple phrase suggests. This latter option is corroborated by the fact that Saul visits a witch in 1 Samuel 28 (verse 7 onwards). I imagine that the rules about how to actually kill a witch are complicated and further elaborated elsewhere in Judaic legal and religious lore.

That seems more to indicate that a book that was assembled from a number of oral traditions and stories contradicts itself now and then. This is hardly surprising.

Let's turn that around, shall we?
I personally believe that religious people, especially those following Abrahamic religions, are wasting a good deal of their life and happiness for nothing.
They waste time on things like prayer, attending church and the like, they submit themselves to unnecessary pressure if they don't conform to whatever their chosen brand of faith demands, there are endless guild trips about things which should actually make them feel good, the list is long. I do think they inflict unnecessary and pointless psychological damage on themselves and their children (I have been one of those children, so I can account first-hand for that).

Yet I don't walk around door to door trying to tell people to stop wasting their lifes, and to have a good lie-in on Sundays.
I don't pay good money to print leaflets, posters, TV programs, ads, etc. to try and make people see that sin is an inherently silly concept.
I don't start citizen initiatives to remove children from religious families to spare them the mental pain and anguish.

I plain leave them in peace. While I believe they are wasting their lives, I also believe that their lives are theirs to waste anyway they see fit. And I don't even have god as a leading example here. I've just got a bit of sense in my head.

Ah, but their wasted time is still a finite punishment (for lack of a better word.) It's neither torment beyond mortal comprehension nor is it eternal. That's why I don't go door to door preaching atheism either, nor do I stand downtown with giant signs saying "Don't Repent, Jesus is not coming!"

But I think if I really did believe eternity was at stake, and the options were bliss or torment, the situation would be rather different. Compassion would compel me to save as many as I could.

I mean, imagine you see a drowning child, and you're the only one who can save him. Wouldn't you do it? This is like that, only multiplied infinitely.

I'm not saying I agree with them, mind you, but I understand, given their belief system, where they are coming from.

That seems more to indicate that a book that was assembled from a number of oral traditions and stories contradicts itself now and then. This is hardly surprising.

Oh, I agree. But for some reason, current Abrahamicists seem to follow the "let's not randomly kill spellcasters" interpretation. If they considered it (the order to kill mages) a direct command from god, it would be hypocritical of them to avoid doing so.

Yet I don't think Zilam and other followers of Abraham would consider themselves hypocrites.

I'm not sure I have a point, though.

Here you go :

Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not a witch to live."
Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch."


With regard to this from a Christian point of view. Times have changed and other rules have come to the forefront. It shows how feel about Witchcraft but we are no longer expected to kill them.


Now we should not take the law or judgment into our own hands and Let God sort out the rest. What may have been seen as "witchcraft" at one now maybe considered "Chemistry". Basically don't put your "faith" in horoscopes, numerology, or astrology, put your faith in God.

Of course the above only applies to those who believe in the concept.

Are you going to Hell if you read your horoscope in the newspaper. Not likely if you use it as a daily diversion.

Ah, but their wasted time is still a finite punishment (for lack of a better word.) It's neither torment beyond mortal comprehension nor is it eternal. That's why I don't go door to door preaching atheism either, nor do I stand downtown with giant signs saying "Don't Repent, Jesus is not coming!"

But I think if I really did believe eternity was at stake, and the options were bliss or torment, the situation would be rather different. Compassion would compel me to save as many as I could.

I mean, imagine you see a drowning child, and you're the only one who can save him. Wouldn't you do it? This is like that, only multiplied infinitely.

I'm not saying I agree with them, mind you, but I understand, given their belief system, where they are coming from.

Oh, trust me, I know where they're coming from.
However, apart from not following their proclaimed god in their actions, they're also apparently quite unaware of a basic principle of human psychology. Call it the donkey dogma, if you want. It basically says that the more you harass somebody to do something, the less likely it becomes that the person in question will actually do that. Most will actually stop listening altogether after a while, and only react annoyed.

With regard to this from a Christian point of view. Times have changed and other rules have come to the forefront. It shows how feel about Witchcraft but we are no longer expected to kill them.


Now we should not take the law or judgment into our own hands and Let God sort out the rest. What may have been seen as "witchcraft" at one now maybe considered "Chemistry". Basically don't put your "faith" in horoscopes, numerology, or astrology, put your faith in God.

Of course the above only applies to those who believe in the concept.

Are you going to Hell if you read your horoscope in the newspaper. Not likely if you use it as a daily diversion.

*flips through her bible*

It's odd, I can't find anywhere it says that. Did you just make that up, based on non-Christian, humanitarian principles?

probably because you don't believe the same. There is some sympathy to the position. Let's say you believed, you TRULY believed, that I, me, Neo Art, am due for an eternity of endless, inconceivable torment. Talking tortures beyond mortal understanding. Too much for any man to bear. No escape, no relent, no relief.

Ever.

And you TRULY believed that.

Wouldn't you do whatever you could to save me from that?

Yes, I would try to save you with all my strenght if I truly believed that way.
But I don't. Hence why I have never had such a moral dilemma.

*flips through her bible*

It's odd, I can't find anywhere it says that. Did you just make that up, based on non-Christian, humanitarian principles?

It would be easier to say yes I just made it up than to show you all the places it changed. So for brevity, yes but trust me if you like or check it out for yourself.


I will give you a hint most of them are in the NT. Besides this is all superstitious nonsense to you right?