Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

religion of peace
FN Posted: Fri Jan 19 05:35:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Dodgy site that borders on populist entertainment but nevertheless it has some good stuff on it.

http://thereligionofpeace



Also,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y0BfJFWLFM&eurl=


 
FN Posted: Fri Jan 19 05:36:20 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  wrong link, try this:

http://thereligionofpeace.com


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Fri Jan 19 06:06:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>Also,
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y0BfJFWLFM&eurl=

It's the beard


 
Mark Posted: Fri Jan 19 06:14:46 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just a quick post. I skimmed through the site, since I'm supposed to be very busy at the moment :) The site is onesided and is full of prejudices (sp?). If pointing out the wrongdoings of one religion, point them out for all. Many things that are said about the Islam can be said about almost any other religion.

for example: "There is something deeply, deeply wrong with Islam." Which the sites states in the about section can also be used for... *choose any religion you don't like.

As for the verses telling the Muslims to kill and such. Read the bible, so we can at least at 2 religions with the same statements (and all of there sub groups).

The main problem is the attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm going to do everything to shut you up which I may beause I'm right".

So... since I don't want to be like that, I must confess that I can be wrong :)


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 06:17:20 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  After reading about Muhammad's sex life (the guy was a player) perhaps it should be called "The Religion of Piece".




Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace




 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 06:43:13 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Mark said:
If pointing out the wrongdoings of one religion, point them out for all.


Yup

The truth is all major religions have their own sorted history. That's not meant to excuse the unbelievable stupidity of what's happening today in the name of Allah, but they all have plenty of skeletons in their respective historical closets.

I must admit though that I'm having a much harder time these days trying to rationalize those muslim believers with more rational and moderate beliefs. One look around at the horrors and lunacy committed by the followers of Muhammad would have me saying, "I want nothing to do with this insanity".
And if not that at least they should be out in huge numbers across the globe demonstrating against those extremists who have hijacked their religion and turned it into the religion of intolerance and hate.
I find their silence very disturbing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 08:15:50 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I find their silence very disturbing.
>
I believe I've said that more than once in this very forum.

Yes, their silence is deafening.

It's easy to say that Christianity has it's own violent past, but it's pretty much in the distant past and not applicable to modern times.
Also, if you look at the two founders of today's dominant religions, Jesus and Mohammed, you won't see a lot of similarites. Jesus did not advocate beating your wife for sport and did not advocate killing those who disagreed with him. I have problems with these policies.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 08:27:12 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Yes, their silence is deafening.

stop agreeing with me...it's unnatural

: )

>It's easy to say that Christianity has it's own violent past, but it's pretty much in the distant past and not applicable to modern times.

Horrors done in the name of christianity extended up to the 20th century. Is that not "modern" enough for you?
Facts are that unspeakable shit has been committed by all major religions, except maybe Buddhism, and I only exclude it because I'm a bit ignorant on that religion's history. Maybe if I knew more I'd also throw it in with the others.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 08:38:52 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>Yes, their silence is deafening.
>
>stop agreeing with me...it's unnatural
>
>: )
>
>>It's easy to say that Christianity has it's own violent past, but it's pretty much in the distant past and not applicable to modern times.
>
>Horrors done in the name of christianity extended up to the 20th century. Is that not "modern" enough for you?
>
what horror do you speak of and how do they compare with those committed in the name of Allah for the last 35yrs or so ?


 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Jan 19 09:03:00 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankhill_butchers
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/66/24184

I say #2 is much worse



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 09:31:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankhill_butchers
>http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/66/24184
>
>I say #2 is much worse
>
I don't really see either one as being an atrocity committed in the name religion.
As a matter of fact, #2 while it may be somewhat misguided, we are only getting one side of the story here, it is still an act of compassion, someone trying to help someone else.


 
J. Posted: Fri Jan 19 09:46:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:

>Facts are that unspeakable shit has been committed by all major religions, except maybe Buddhism

Except Buddhism << correct. No "maybe".


If Islam is such a horrible religion, why is it one of the fastest-growing religions in the US? (and other countries around the world too)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/islam_around_the_world/html/usa.stm


I recently watched the DVD "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet" (done by PBS - http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/) and learned so much about Muslims. Highly recommend it to anyone.

Interesting debate on "The way Muslims treat women - a question for women":

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=62881&highlight=muhammad+legacy+prophet


addi said:

>I find their silence very disturbing.

Agree 100%



 
DanSRose Posted: Fri Jan 19 10:19:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I guess I should defend my position that denying condoms and limitings AIDS information and general sexual awareness based on your own backyard fundamental religious standpoint is akin to issuing a fatwah against the West. It is choosing to let people die by putting a restriction of both basic information (which more than not, denies females their basic Choice, leaving the local patriarchy in charge that does lovely things that we all know about) and then flat out denying AIDS/STD/baby preventing condoms (there's restriction on funding if there are condoms involved)

Now I'm angry and confused myself


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 10:32:20 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>what horror do you speak of and how do they compare with those committed in the name of Allah for the last 35yrs or so ?

20th century imperialism in asia and africa had economic reasons behind it for sure, but it was justified by christianizing those heathen populations. A strong sense of Social Darwinism (that white christians were superior human beings)was prevelant. The ensueing chaos, pain, deaths, social and economic mess these policies caused on native populations is well documented, and indirectly affects these post-colonial countries today.

The bitter hatred and deaths in 20th century Northern Ireland were between protestants and catholics.

I could even make a case for a twisted view of christianity fueling those that killed blacks in the civil right's struggle here in the 20th century.

there are more examples too, including horrors done in the name of christianity in 20th century Latin America, and in South Africa.

My point was only to say that attrocities are not limited to those of the muslim faith....and it strikes me as irrelevant whether it was done 3 years ago or 36 years ago.


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 10:47:44 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:

>If Islam is such a horrible religion, why is it one of the fastest-growing religions in the US? (and other countries around the world too)

*raises hand and waves it wildly*

"oh..oh..oh..I know...I know!"

"Because humans are basically stupid?"


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 10:50:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>what horror do you speak of and how do they compare with those committed in the name of Allah for the last 35yrs or so ?
>
>20th century imperialism in asia and africa had economic reasons behind it for sure, but it was justified by christianizing those heathen populations. A strong sense of Social Darwinism (that white christians were superior human beings)was prevelant. The ensueing chaos, pain, deaths, social and economic mess these policies caused on native populations is well documented, and indirectly affects these post-colonial countries today.
>
>The bitter hatred and deaths in 20th century Northern Ireland were between protestants and catholics.
>
>I could even make a case for a twisted view of christianity fueling those that killed blacks in the civil right's struggle here in the 20th century.
>
>there are more examples too, including horrors done in the name of christianity in 20th century Latin America, and in South Africa.
>
>My point was only to say that attrocities are not limited to those of the muslim faith....and it strikes me as irrelevant whether it was done 3 years ago or 36 years ago.
>
None of these acts were done by religious fanatics in the name of their God. You may have a point, an arguable one, but a point nonetheless concerning imperialism in Asia, but the strife in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion, it has more to do with English occupation and the fact that the English are protestants and the Iris are catholics is secondary. They may as well both be jewish, the matter of occupation would still exist.

The lynching of blacks in America was not done in the name of Jesus and it was certainly denounced by Christians everywhere and it was Christians that were at the forefront of freedom and civil rights.

And you're right, it doesn't matter if it were 3 or 36yrs ago, but it does matter if you're talking more than a hundred years.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 10:52:28 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>suenos said:
>
>>If Islam is such a horrible religion, why is it one of the fastest-growing religions in the US? (and other countries around the world too)
>
>*raises hand and waves it wildly*
>
>"oh..oh..oh..I know...I know!"
>
>"Because humans are basically stupid?"
>
Because guys want to be able to beat their wives and rape women without fear of recrimination ?


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 11:18:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>but the strife in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion, it has more to do with English occupation and the fact that the English are protestants and the Iris are catholics is secondary.

http://allfreeessays.com/student/Northern_Ireland_Conflict-Religion_vs_Politics.html

"Religion seems to be the element that ties many of the theories on the conflict together. Under the above pretense, the labels Catholic and Protestant are used to convey cultural and political connotations. Yet religion remains an integral part of ones culture. In the battle over land, religion maintains its tie through the battle between Protestant landlords and Catholic tenants. Religion even has political links, as many nationalists, such as D.P. Morgan, the founder of the Leader newspaper, believe that the two ideas are inseparable..."

There are several reasons behind the conflict in Ireland, but to discount the role that religion has played shows a lack of real understanding about the sources of conflict there in my opinion.

Perhaps our UK friends here can shed more light on the matter


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 11:55:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>but the strife in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion, it has more to do with English occupation and the fact that the English are protestants and the Iris are catholics is secondary.
>
>http://allfreeessays.com/student/Northern_Ireland_Conflict-Religion_vs_Politics.html
>
>"Religion seems to be the element that ties many of the theories on the conflict together. Under the above pretense, the labels Catholic and Protestant are used to convey cultural and political connotations. Yet religion remains an integral part of ones culture. In the battle over land, religion maintains its tie through the battle between Protestant landlords and Catholic tenants. Religion even has political links, as many nationalists, such as D.P. Morgan, the founder of the Leader newspaper, believe that the two ideas are inseparable..."
>
>There are several reasons behind the conflict in Ireland, but to discount the role that religion has played shows a lack of real understanding about the sources of conflict there in my opinion.
>
>Perhaps our UK friends here can shed more light on the matter
>
Either way you look at it, it's certainly not comparable to a religious fanatic invoking the name of allah and slicing off your head.

Yes, there were some terrorist acts committed by the IRA, but they pale in comparison to the acts being committed by these idiots that think they will get 72 virginians if only they can kill a few more women and children.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jan 19 12:12:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I have no time to comment at the moment but I will


Untill then, keep 'em in check for me hif


 
Beep Posted: Fri Jan 19 15:09:21 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  hif said:
>None of these acts were done by religious fanatics in the name of their God. You may have a point, an arguable one, but a point nonetheless concerning imperialism in Asia, but the strife in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with religion, it has more to do with English occupation and the fact that the English are protestants and the Iris are catholics is secondary. They may as well both be jewish, the matter of occupation would still exist.

The Irish-Protestant fighting was as arguably religious as a lot of the muslim attacks are. I think that for the most part religion is a secondary in both cases.
There is a lot of hate for the west in the middle east, I think that people latch on to it with the extreme religion. If the hate wasn't there in the first place it wouldn't be a problem.
There's a lot of study to show that the extremeists that come from within a country (I'm speaking about Britain, but I'm fairly sure it applies overseas) are due to maniputable and easily influenced teenagers/young adults who aren't comfortable with their place in the world, who are first generation english, have ties in the west and the east and aren't sure which 'home' is more important.
When it comes down to it religion and violence are all products and symptoms of a deeper problem. There are points in every religion that would allow everyone to get on with each other, just as there are points that advocate blowing each other up. The fact that we choose to blow each other up is down to feelings and hate which would be there with or without religion. Religion purely allows this violence to come out. If it wasn't religion it would be there under a different name. Racism.. whatever.

And for the arguement Buddhism isn't a religion as it has no central God. It's a philosophy. For example it's possible to be a buddhist and a jew. (Leonard Cohen is one)


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 16:28:57 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:

>And for the arguement Buddhism isn't a religion as it has no central God. It's a philosophy.

understand what you're saying, but I think that's very debatable. a belief system doesn't have to be monotheistic to be considered a religion. Hindus believe in many gods. And while Buddhists don't believe in a supreme being like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, some sects believe the Buddha to be a god.
Perhaps it just boils down to semantics, and what one sees as the difference between a philosophy and a religion.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jan 19 16:39:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Beep said:
>
>>And for the arguement Buddhism isn't a religion as it has no central God. It's a philosophy.
>
>understand what you're saying, but I think that's very debatable. a belief system doesn't have to be monotheistic to be considered a religion. Hindus believe in many gods. And while Buddhists don't believe in a supreme being like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, some sects believe the Buddha to be a god.
>Perhaps it just boils down to semantics, and what one sees as the difference between a philosophy and a religion.
>
Must there be divinity for religion to exist ? Good question.
Ask the scientologists.


 
FN Posted: Fri Jan 19 19:16:29 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>If Islam is such a horrible religion, why is it one of the fastest-growing religions in the US? (and other countries around the world too)

Because a lot of US "citizens" (and european ones for that matter) are of a target group: unrooted immigrants who look at anything to grab on to.

You know how it is, it's how children get into the wrong crowd: the most extreme is the coolest

It's setting yourself off against the system while finally belonging to a tight group


 
FN Posted: Fri Jan 19 19:20:36 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>There are several reasons behind the conflict in Ireland, but to discount the role that religion has played shows a lack of real understanding about the sources of conflict there in my opinion.

I'll start by saying that my knowledge about the irish/british conflict is limited, but what I do know is that you're giving religion too much credit into it.

It is a struggle about occupation of northern ireland by the british (at least in the eyes of the irish). Religion is very much a secondary thing, but because you need an enemy to fight against and be different from, religion is an ideal tool.

But I'd say in this one religion followed instead of leading the conflict


 
addi Posted: Fri Jan 19 20:33:22 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>But I'd say in this one religion followed instead of leading the conflict

and my sweet dear lovable Christophe...no where did I state that religion was the primary cause of the conflict...only that it shouldn't be dismissed as not having any role in the decades of violence there. From the limited amount of knowledge I have of the subject the hatred between catholics and protestants there has definately fueled the fire.


 
J. Posted: Sat Jan 20 13:17:45 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
 

So-called educated people who don't tolerate other races, cultures, or religions (such as Mr. Christophe) are just as disturbing and dangerous as those who are extremists and/or fanatics.


 
J. Posted: Sat Jan 20 13:43:59 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beep said:
>
>And for the arguement Buddhism isn't a religion as it has no central God. It's a philosophy.


Agree 100%.




 
FN Posted: Sat Jan 20 15:04:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>So-called educated people (such as Mr. Christophe)

Lol

You're right, I dropped out of school at the age of 10 to feed my baby crack.

>are just as disturbing and dangerous as those who are extremists and/or fanatics.

Well thank you


 
addi Posted: Sat Jan 20 16:12:59 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  suenos said:
>Beep said:
>>
>>And for the arguement Buddhism isn't a religion as it has no central God. It's a philosophy.
>
>
>Agree 100%.

My next door neighbor is heavily into Buddhism. When I asked him about this he said it really depends on what country, what form, and each individual Buddhist. Some would answer that it is most definately their religion. He said it's more of a personal "philosophical" way of life for him. So maybe it's both.
Actually he said a lot more cuz he talks my head off in a very soft, slow, and monotone voice, but that's neither here nor there. His name is Earl, which has never fit my image of a Buddhist name.

and speaking of religion....that's a swell pic of you suenos


 
FN Posted: Sat Jan 20 16:49:42 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'll tell you what the western kind of buddhism is:

I'm an enlightened hipster, my declaration of being a buddhist to everybody who wants to hear about it (and especially towards those who don't care, because they should, or they'll miss how spiritual I am) signifies my one-ness with the kosmos and the inner peace I have found within myself.

When people ask me about my buddhism I tell them it's the most wonderful thing, and that they should not confuse it with religion as such, because I know that those who are not "in the know" like me often do ("I get that all the time"), but more a state of being, an outlook on life, a sort of live and let live.

As you can tell I have though a great deal about this and hereby indirectly declare myself as an intelligent spiritual person with not much more to back it up than a kitsch fake gold statuette of a fat guy in lotus position.



I'm telling you: if you see a buddha statue anywhere near the living room of a non-asian you're dealing with a poser that most likely has some unresolved issues that warrant that kind of over the top supposed easiness with life


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Sun Jan 21 03:33:37 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  or ...

It might just be that you agree with alot of stuff buddhism stands for...

You don't have to be a freaky enlightened hipster, to be able to say that it is a philosophy (or religion whatever you want)that makes some great points, and keeping something as a little buddha statue just to remind you that there's more to life then the normal irritating shit we see everyday

I think it there are some great values in buddhism, doesn't make me a buddhist, nor do I want to be one

I just understand why some people would, even if you're not an asian like you put it chris


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 06:31:25 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:

>You don't have to be a freaky enlightened hipster, to be able to say that it is a philosophy (or religion whatever you want)that makes some great points, and keeping something as a little buddha statue just to remind you that there's more to life then the normal irritating shit we see everyday

yup. well said.




 
FN Posted: Sun Jan 21 07:36:00 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I say that westerners often use it as a fashion symbol while they have close to no clue as to what it is about and just make something up on the fly, and do base their identification of being a buddhist on having a knock off gold statue in their house.

I have some sympathy for buddhist values and believes, but that doesn't make me one. Nor do I feel the need to introduce myself as one either, and therein lies the catch.

I have a hardwired mistrust of people who claim to be at total ease with life based upon their spiritual views on life because more often than not those are the first to give people the finger when somebody cuts them off while driving


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 07:49:00 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I say that westerners often use it as a fashion symbol while they have close to no clue as to what it is about and just make something up on the fly, and do base their identification of being a buddhist on having a knock off gold statue in their house.

no doubt there are many like that, but I'm sure there are many westerners who subscribe to Buddhist beliefs who do it with integrity and sincerity.

I think you have a tendency to see hypocracy (correctly so) in people, but take it a step too far and put everyone that fits that description into the same boat..whether it's referring to race, religion, music tastes, whatever.

However I do find you quite entertaining to read : )


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 07:56:47 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ps

I know you don't give a rat's ass about what I think, but you should. Buddah does.
: )


 
FN Posted: Sun Jan 21 08:32:27 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I think you have a tendency to see hypocracy (correctly so) in people, but take it a step too far and put everyone that fits that description into the same boat..whether it's referring to race, religion, music tastes, whatever.

That's because hypocrisy is the single most prevalent feature of how people view themselves and present themselves to others.

Wether I take it too far is a matter of opinion.
I have no problem with people being a buddhist (or any other form of religion, I'm serious about that), what I have a problem with is people looking for every possible opportunity to talk about "their *different* way of life" and stress on how wonderful it is and are basicly indirectly patting themselves on the back for being so special over something that they have gained no merrit for patting for, basicly.

It's the same as it always is: "I'm so damn mediocre that I see no other way to make me feel like an individual than latch on to something that differs from the norm. Hey, I'll become a buddhist! That's the new big thing! I switch religions like tv channels! It's either that or madonna's or tom cruise's religion. As long as it it hip and fresh!"

And then when the initial hype passes a bit the buddha statue still sits there gathering dust, being so out of place in the living otherwise western living room that kitsch would say it's kitsch, they haven't been in lotus position for ages (and when at first they were all they were thinking is "look at me! I'm meditating! I'm so going to tell my friends about this!"), let alone ever actually gotten to a point that comes close to meditation or looking inwards ("I must have been meditating for like 15 minutes now!"), and after having "meditated" once they make themselves believe that they do it on a regular basis.

And then when people go "hey, what's that statue about" or "you're a buddhist? Cool" they pretend to be the freaking dalai lama.



Seriously, I thrive on calling those kind of people on stuff like that. Hours of fun.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jan 21 08:56:16 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hm

I'd like to state that I'm quite fond of kitsch, as long as it is tasteful and not taking itself seriously. Does that make sense. Yes it does.


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 09:12:53 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:


>I have no problem with people being a buddhist (or any other form of religion, I'm serious about that), what I have a problem with is people looking for every possible opportunity to talk about "their *different* way of life" and stress on how wonderful it is and are basicly indirectly patting themselves on the back for being so special over something that they have gained no merrit for patting for, basicly.

so there's no disagreement then. you have no problems with authentic and sincere followers of Buddha, but you do have a problem with hypocritical and phoney believers, of which there are many to be found in every religion.
right?



 
FN Posted: Sun Jan 21 09:23:27 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>so there's no disagreement then. you have no problems with authentic and sincere followers of Buddha

To an extent

Let me rephrase: I have no problem with people adhering to a certain religion in general

However, wether I can take somebody who is "a follower of buddha" seriously is a different matter. Just like I can't take "a follower of jesus" or "a follower of mohammed" seriously. Set your own values.

Also, am I the only one who thinks the dalai lama is an asshole?


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 09:31:33 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>However, wether I can take somebody who is "a follower of buddha" seriously is a different matter.

and just what does "taking them seriously" mean? Are all of these serious believers shallow, insincere, and hypocritical to you? Or do you just mean that, while respecting their personal beliefs, you couldn't do it yourself?



>Also, am I the only one who thinks the dalai lama is an asshole?

but he's a hell of a golfer


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jan 21 09:33:41 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>am I the only one who thinks the dalai lama is an asshole?
>
Probably
:-)


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 09:48:50 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Probably
>:-)

LOL!

yeah...I've posted this before. so sue me!

Carl: So I jump ship in Hong Kong and make my way over to Tibet, and I get on as a looper at a course over in the Himalayas. A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one---big hitter, the Lama---long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consiousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jan 21 09:49:55 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>and just what does "taking them seriously" mean? Are all of these serious believers shallow, insincere, and hypocritical to you?

I have no doubt that many people experience there religion in a sincere way, that's after all the essence of "believing".

But I can't take them serious in a way that they supposedly live by the ethical rules somebody else has set for them because in the end you live by your own ethical rules anyway (like how many christians don't have a problem with homosexuals or abortion, even if they would only agree to it in certain cases).

So I can't take somebody who is "a follower of" seriously, no. And that goes beyond the domain of religion as well.

>Or do you just mean that, while respecting their personal beliefs, you couldn't do it yourself?

In my younger years (I'm talking 10-14) I experimented with trying to trick myself into believing because I figured it was an easy way out of having to deal with the unpleasant sides of reality. But I'm somehow bullshit resistant to a very high degree.


 
mat_j Posted: Sun Jan 21 12:00:34 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  These arguments against relgion and religions are becoming as tired and bloated as the relgions themselves.

Can't next time somebody starts a thread on religion we just post links to previous arguments and get them to read them and then and only then if they have something new to peddle we will listen.

We all know the story and it is a protracted boring one, nobody here even bothers to really defend relgion since Trogdor passed into the ether.


 
addi Posted: Sun Jan 21 12:17:52 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:

>We all know the story and it is a protracted boring one, nobody here even bothers to really defend relgion since Trogdor passed into the ether.

oh, Trog...we hardly knew ye.

actually innonence is quick to defend her faith (in a level-headed way i might add)...and there's someone else too...damn I'm losing my memory...is it Beep or Hsolo? Help me..I can't remember.
Anyway we're not all godless souls here


*Ludwig just became a Scientologist. He told me it's a good religion for picking up chicks
:(


 
FN Posted: Sun Jan 21 17:26:43 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>These arguments against relgion and religions are becoming as tired and bloated as the relgions themselves.

Well but it's about something else: not religion itself but the use of buddhism as a cheap watch that reads "frolex"


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jan 21 18:39:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>mat_j said:
>>These arguments against relgion and religions are becoming as tired and bloated as the relgions themselves.
>
>Well but it's about something else: not religion itself but the use of buddhism as a cheap watch that reads "frolex"
>
I thought it was "folex".


 
maybeitwillwork Posted: Mon Jan 29 01:29:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  How about we just drop the topic of religion, I think not that if we just didn't talk about it, everyone would be happier.


 
FN Posted: Mon Jan 29 03:36:48 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah, ignore the problems and they'll go away


 
addi Posted: Mon Jan 29 06:58:58 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  maybeitwillwork said:
>How about we just drop the topic of religion, I think not that if we just didn't talk about it, everyone would be happier.

I dropped religion from my life years ago...and I'm still not happier
: )


It pops up as a topic here now and then. I don't think it's avoidable completely. It's never been overused as a thread topic that I can recall, and I think discussing topics like religious beliefs is good for the brain and healthy for the spirit....
as long as I don't have some radical jihadist showing up at my door with a sword


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Jan 29 13:46:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's one topic for sure to bring out all the posting sluts around here.
:-)


 
~Just Imagine~ Posted: Mon Jan 29 14:51:31 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well if you guys aren't staying on topic anyway ...

I like scruffy new pic of addi with dog :)

*smiles at picture*


 
addi Posted: Mon Jan 29 15:32:41 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ~Just Imagine~ said:

>I like scruffy new pic of addi with dog :)
>
>*smiles at picture*

that is just so damn sweet! thank you.

suenos and sweet p commented on it, but they just complimented my scruffy dog.


: )


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]