|
As someone who grew up buddihst I think it has a lot less "preachiness" to it.
No offense with that post but Buddhism is about karma and a good middle road life that is accepting and thoughtful about your after life.
It's way less invasive than most of the other religions and you don't have buddhists on street corners yelling "GOD HATES FAGS"
or even in politics trying to limit the rights of homosexual because of their scripture.
|
On March 02 2013 07:20 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:04 Joedaddy wrote:...focus with a skeptical perspective on the parts that suit their agenda. A 1000x this. There is so much hatred and bigotry towards religion. Hatred and bigotry are the manifestation of ignorance on a subject that some have no desire to understand because its simply more convenient to ignore the truth while generalizing all religions and religious people. You know that this works also the other way around, right? Do me a favor, explain to me reasonable, why so many people hate on islam and christians (you see, its not hatred or bigotry towards religion in general, but towards these two religions) - and near to none (i NEVER saw someone doing it) towards for example buddhists? Do you have any experience with nations in which Buddhism is a major religion?
|
The last thing we should do is listen to some fictional book or its followers when we are trying to get equal rights for everybody. Good thing Obama is pushing this now, who knows how long it would take if you get another few of those religious cooks in the future.
|
What tso and dAPhREAk said. Also check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Buddhists
If it exists, theres probably been persecution against it.
As for those justifying negative behavior towards religion, bigotry is bigotry. In my opinion, people aren't jerks because of their religion, creed, sexuality, beliefs, etc. They're jerks because they're jerks and people from all sorts of associations, groups, and backgrounds can behave with civility or with irrational rage. The fact that they believe that they can fully justify is why bigotry even exists.
Also for a challenge for those bashing Christianity. Here's something you may wanna try out for the hell of it. Don't even consider Christianity at all. Pretend that no religion was the reason for restrictions on homosexuality. Now consider what other factors may have contributed to these restrictions. Could it have been economic? Perhaps prior to modern technology, the only way for the majority of the population to survive was through the traditional family unit and a high reproduction rate. Perhaps it was other social factors, such as misogyny, which I argue is not purely a Christian fault, as many societies and religions developed as such. Perhaps the need for the female/male dynamic was seen as infallible.
Certainly these don't hold true today, but what you should consider is that these factors may go hand and hand with Christianity that one was not necessarily the cause of the other.
|
After reading page 9 & 10 i really really want to go to the States to check out if those "Christians" are indeed as funny as they seem. I was raised christian and i can't believe the same "christians" spread hate although they should spread the love. I don't get it, maybe in Germany the protestant Church is just more "nice"?
Now as far as the news goes, i'm glad. Finally a big hint into the worlds direction to show some support to our friends who want to live their life with another person they love. Gay or not, don't see the matter.
|
On March 02 2013 07:59 Pimpmuckl wrote: After reading page 9 & 10 i really really want to go to the States to check out if those "Christians" are indeed as funny as they seem. I was raised christian and i can't believe the same "christians" spread hate although they should spread the love. I don't get it, maybe in Germany the protestant Church is just more "nice"?
Now as far as the news goes, i'm glad. Finally a big hint into the worlds direction to show some support to our friends who want to live their life with another person they love. Gay or not, don't see the matter. It really is the influence of politics
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain.
|
Is anyone even arguing that religious views justify a ban on same sex marriage here? Looks like 11 pages of circlejerking from e-atheists.
|
On March 02 2013 07:19 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 07:12 danl9rm wrote:On March 01 2013 14:29 aTnClouD wrote: Huge bigot religious drama shitfest inc Let me try to interpret this. It's not alright when religious people believe that homosexual partners should not be able to marry because they believe it is wrong and therefore voice their opinion. It is alright when people believe that homosexual partners should be able to marry because they believe it is okay and therefore voice their opinion. Is that a fair assessment? Correct me where I'm wrong. I'm not trying to be rude, this is just what it seems like to me and so figure I'm missing something. Why do you think you're missing something? Seems pretty bang on to me. At least when it's in regards to making law and not simply a matter of personal preference.
Having a dissenting opinion is fine. Having a dissenting opinion not based on facts, science, empirical and demonstrable evidence, not so much. Claiming that the moon is made of cheese is an opinion. Would you take it seriously?
Also, what on earth inspired some people to think marriage has any roots in religion? It existed as a concept long before any of the monotheistic religions that dominate the world today came into being. It is basically institutionalized prostitution, usually in the form of a father granting exclusive access to his daughter's vagina in exchange for money/land/goods. It's a business agreement, nothing more. It's about as romantic and sacred as the stuff you get between your toes after wearing flip-flops on a really warm day.
For the record, I fully support gay marriage, and fully oppose marriage as a concept. If that made any sense.
|
On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside.
|
On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside.
i always get "why are you so closed minded?" when expressing how i don't believe the earth is 6000 years old
they really are that blind
|
On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. Come on, I know you see the problems inherent to such a cursory brand of logic. A great number of those who see the utility in lambasting something as expansive as "religion" are simply unable or unwilling to recognize just how much differentiation exists amongst the "religious". Furthermore, the notion that anyone ought to outwardly justify their religious inclinations in order to satisfy some stilted public perspective makes little sense to me, particularly when that public perspective is so obviously flawed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 02 2013 08:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. Come on, I know you see the problems inherent to such a cursory brand of logic. A great number of those who see the utility in lambasting something as expansive as "religion" are simply unable or unwilling to recognize just how much differentiation exists amongst the "religious". Furthermore, the notion that anyone ought to outwardly justify their religious inclinations in order to satisfy some stilted public perspective makes little sense to me, particularly when that public perspective is so obviously flawed. yea well, religion can be ok, but as a broader social phenomenon it is notable for the powerful hereditary effects. it's one of the pillars of passing on traditions, and that includes traditional prejudices.
of course, one can be religious and reject any and all of the doctrines held by the rest of the religious group. but, even that guy should recognize the above mentioned blind heredity of tradition in religious society.
|
On March 02 2013 08:21 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. i always get "why are you so closed minded?" when expressing how i don't believe the earth is not 6000 years old they really are that blind
I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but did you just say you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or that you don't? (double negative)
|
lol earth 6,000 years old. idiots i call them. its actually 10,000 years old.
|
On March 02 2013 08:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:21 tso wrote:On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. i always get "why are you so closed minded?" when expressing how i don't believe the earth is not 6000 years old they really are that blind I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but did you just say you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or that you don't? (double negative)
lol fixed. an unfortunate negative there
|
On March 02 2013 08:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2013 08:23 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:11 oneofthem wrote:On March 02 2013 08:10 farvacola wrote:On March 02 2013 08:05 oneofthem wrote: using religion as a rationale for prejudice has the hidden implication that your religion bounds you to a certain moral view. this binding is what's really at stake.
why can't you think for yourself, the general refrain. Well then the answering verse would be "we can and we do." doesn't look like it from the outside. Come on, I know you see the problems inherent to such a cursory brand of logic. A great number of those who see the utility in lambasting something as expansive as "religion" are simply unable or unwilling to recognize just how much differentiation exists amongst the "religious". Furthermore, the notion that anyone ought to outwardly justify their religious inclinations in order to satisfy some stilted public perspective makes little sense to me, particularly when that public perspective is so obviously flawed. yea well, religion can be ok, but as a broader social phenomenon it is notable for the powerful hereditary effects. it's one of the pillars of passing on traditions, and that includes traditional prejudices. of course, one can be religious and reject any and all of the doctrines held by the rest of the religious group. but, even that guy should recognize the above mentioned blind heredity of tradition in religious society. That sounds far more reasonable, and believe me when I tell you that there do exist entire congregations of "Christians" who consider it their spiritual duty to indict tradition and challenge "the moral establishment" as much as they can. Many atheists and agnostics would be surprised to know just how many religious folk are actually "on their side", if only they'd drop the surface level hyperbolic judgements.
|
1. its about time, democratic presidents always have this giant problem of growing their balls on the bottom of their feet so they pussyfoot around every issue ~.~ seriously
2. it doesnt make you morally superior for believing in creationism or evolution. the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick.
3. if you take the second most important law (love thy neighbor, after love the lord your god which we shall ignore because that is a non-secular one), then there is no reason to ban gay marriage. if the term marriage was not used in over 1100 places in legislation that defines everything from the tax code to the most inane of topics, then whatever. but if in keeping your beliefs hurts someone else, that is fundamentally wrong. It matters little whether someone hates gays or loves gays or doesnt care, so far as it not affect someone
4. hate the players, not the game
|
On March 02 2013 08:48 CeriseCherries wrote: the same fundamental reason that you or anyone believes evolution is the same reason that someone believes creationsim: someone told you, probably starting at a young age that it was so. for all we know tomorrow the fuckign Xel Naga will land and tell us that evolution is bullshit and they made everyone. well haha for you morally superior prick.
evidence > holy book
|
|
|
|